California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Cartwright, 39 Cal.App.4th 1123, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 351 (Cal. App. 1995):
Defendant grossly understates the seriousness of his brutal and degrading acts. "The essential guilt of rape consists in the outrage to the person and feelings of the victim of the rape." ( 263.) Further, defendant ignores an examination of the nature of the offender. "This branch of the inquiry therefore focuses on the particular person before the court, and asks whether the punishment is grossly disproportionate to the defendant's individual culpability as shown by such factors as his age, prior criminality, personal characteristics, and state of mind." (People v. Dillon (1983) 34 Cal.3d 441, 479, 194 Cal.Rptr. 390, 668 P.2d 697.) Defendant was 44 years old when he committed these crimes; he had a criminal history dating back to when he was 14. Defendant had spent most of his adult life in custody; he was on parole, having been released from custody only three days earlier, when he committed these offenses. Defendant's prior crimes were numerous and often violent; they included weapons charges, assault with a deadly weapon, burglaries, voluntary manslaughter, and rape. The legislative determination that, given defendant's repeated failure to reform and his continued violence, the public should now be protected forever from this violent recidivist can hardly be said to
Page 358
Defendant's comparison of his punishment to that of a murderer is misguided. He ignores that the "three strikes" law punishes not only his current offenses, but also his recidivism. California statutes imposing more severe [39 Cal.App.4th 1137] punishment on habitual criminals have long withstood constitutional challenge. (See People v. Weaver (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 119, 125-126, 207 Cal.Rptr. 419, and cases cited therein.) Moreover, the serial murderer of defendant's example would likely receive either the death penalty or life without parole. ( 190.2, subd. (a)(3).) Thus, defendant's argument about parole eligibility does not hold.
V. Use of Pre-March 7, 1994 Prior Convictions ***
VI. Dual Use of Prior as "Strike" and Enhancement
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.