WOODLAND, CA – Judge Daniel Wolk denied Defense Attorney Robert Byers’s motion to dismiss one of his client’s strikes Wednesday in Yolo County Superior Court, despite the accused being a minor when acquiring the strike and having engaged in “meaningful rehabilitation” steps since the original charge.
The accused is charged with multiple felonies for second-degree burglary, with enhancements because of the accused’s prior felony convictions.
According to Byers, his introduction of a Romero Motion to dismiss his client’s strike from an Oakland robbery involving vehicles and stores in 2008 was brought to the court “to dismiss criminal charges that are unfair or frivolous,” according to California’s Penal Code section 1385.
Byers argued that due to the accused being only 16 years old at the time of the 2008 incident and the accused’s character development since, the court should “strike the strike,” which would help the accused during his future sentencing hearing where prior strikes can enhance prison sentences.
Referencing California’s 1994 “Three Strikes and You’re Out Law” which increases prison sentences for repeat felons, Byer asserted that this was “a clear case” in which the Romero Motion should be granted since the accused was “not the oldest, not the most sophisticated player” in the 2008 Oakland robbery.
Byers also capitalized on his briefings submitted to the court, explaining the accused had engaged in much community service and rehabilitation work, referencing a letter written to the court from the Prince Hall Computer Learning Center that describes the accused as a “remarkable asset.”
Byers also argued the accused’s crimes were far “less severe” than as characterized by the prosecution.
In response to Byers’ arguments, despite acknowledging the accused’s young age at the time of the strike, Deputy District Attorney Jose Figueroa opposed the court granting the Romero motion, asserting the accused still played an “active role in the robberies” and charging the robbery was “very sophisticated” and showed “force in a coordinated manner.”
“(The accused) has chosen to commit felony-level theft, fraud, and burglary…which culminated in 2022 with a series of vehicle burglaries here in Yolo County,” DDA Figueroa stated, referencing the accused’s other criminal encounters in Alameda, Marin and Yolo Counties since 2008.
Concluding his opposition to the Romero Motion, DDA Figueroa stated to Judge Wolk the accused has not led a “law-abiding life.”
In a rebuttal to DDA Figueroa’s opposition, Byers claimed, “It literally was a lifetime away,” having been over 16 years since the 2008 robbery occurred.
“To the extent that the DA would like to paint this as a sophisticated crime, you have to make an individualized assessment,” Byers concluded, asking Judge Wolk to consider the accused’s role in the 2008 robbery when considering striking his strike, and not just the nature of the crime as a whole.
Byers also emphasized crimes the accused has been involved in since 2008 have been non-violent.
Despite taking into consideration what the judge said were Byer’s “excellent” arguments and briefing for the Romero Motion, the accused’s “meaningful steps toward rehabilitation” and references who framed the accused in “glowing terms” in letters submitted to the court, Judge Wolk denied the Romero Motion and the defense’s request to dismiss the accused’s first strike, stating that the 2008 incident was “too remote” and too “egregious” to dismiss the strike.
“While I applaud what the (accused)d has done in respect to him being a remarkable asset at the Prince Hall Computer Learning Center, the bottom line in my opinion is that the (accused) has made a career of criminality,” Judge Wolk ultimately stated to Byers following his denial of the motion.
The accused will remain out of jail on bail bond and proceedings will resume April 8 for a pre-hearing conference.
