Penal Code Section 1385(c) does not apply to the alternate sentencing scheme of the “three strikes law."

 

People v. Grandberry (2^nd Dist., Div. 6, 01/22/2026)

 

In 2001, Grandberry was convicted of two person-present burglaries and found to have three prior strikes, three prior serious felonies, and one prior prison term.  After an initial appeal, he ended up with a sentence of 41-life (25-life for the burglaries, three 5-year enhancements for the prior serious felonies, and one year for the prison prior).

Fast forward to 2024 and Grandberry is back in court for a full resentencing on a Penal Code section 1117.25 petition.  He requests the court to strike one five-year prior serious felony enhancement and the one-year prison prior.  He also asks for two of his prior strikes to be stricken, for a new sentence of 22 years. 

The trial court applies Penal Code section 1385(c) to Grandberry’s five-year serious felony enhancements and strikes all three, also striking the one-year prior prison enhancement.  The trial court analyzes Grandberry’s request that two of his strikes be stricken is analyzed, not under the enumerated circumstances in 1385(c) that the court is directed to use in deciding whether to strike a sentencing enhancement , but under the “spirit of the law,” factors in Romero and its progeny.  After applying the Romero test, the trial court finds Grandberry falls within the spirit of the three strikes law and declines to strike the strikes, imposing a new sentence of 25-life.  Grandberry appeals.

This appellate panel affirms.  Grandberry argues that section 1385(c), not the Romero factors, is the proper method for analyzing whether his strikes should be stricken.  He argues two avenues as to why this should be so, [1] section 1385(c) is properly interpreted as applying to requests to strike strikes upon resentencing, and [2] even if not, the ambiguity of the statute merits the court applying the rule of lenity his favor. 

The panel’s response to both questions is based on the legal distinction between “enhancements,” and “alternative sentencing scheme.”  California’s three-strikes law has long been held to be an alternative sentencing scheme, not an enhancement.  Hence, the panel says 1385(c) concerns only sentence enhancements and does not apply to a trial court’s analysis of whether to grant a defendant request to reject the alternative sentencing scheme (strike a strike).

And since the language of 1385(c), viewed within the universe of clear precedent, is not ambiguous, the rule of lenity has no application.