Those of you who read this column on a regular basis
know that I am not a fan of the “three strikes” law. In early November of 2001, there was good news for people who
feel as I do. For the first time, a
court ruled at the federal appeals level that our three strikes law constitutes
cruel and unusual punishment when a sentence is “grossly disproportionate to a
crime.”
This ruling stemmed out of
a case involving Leandro Andrade, who stole $150.00 worth of video tapes. Mr. Andrade had the requisite number of
prior convictions, and the three strikes law kicked in. That led to a FIFTY YEAR PRISON SENTENCE for
$150.00 worth of video tapes, which has been overturned.
There are approximately 3,000 defendants and/or
inmates in our state who may be affected by this ruling. That assumes the ruling is not appealed to
the United States Supreme Court or if it is so appealed, it is upheld. This ruling requires “proportionality” with
regard to sentencing, and it may well lead to a number of motions pertaining to
previously decided cases where the punishment does not appear to fit the
crime.
According to the Public Defender’s Office in Los
Angeles, every case which finds a defendant sentenced to a lengthy prison
sentence for a non-serious or non-violent offense, may well be reviewed.
There are forty states that increase sentences for
those who have prior convictions. In
California the law requires the Court to impose a sentence of twenty-five years
to life if any felony is committed by a defendant with two prior serious or
violent felony convictions. Writing for
the Court, Justice Richard Paez wrote that the Court’s decision does not wipe
out California’s three strikes law; however, it does limit it in circumstances
such as that of Mr. Andrade.
Will this case make it to the United States Supreme
Court? In 1999, the Court refused to
hear an appeal regarding a three strikes case in which an individual was
sentenced to twenty-five years to life for stealing a bottle of vitamins. Is the Court in a different mood now? It would seem that video tapes and vitamins
are pretty much in the same league. It
has been posited that the United States Supreme Court did not take the vitamin
case because they wanted other state courts and federal appellate courts to
study these issues first and issue their own hopefully well-reasoned rulings.
Well, a number of decisions have come forth since the
vitamin case in 1999, and Judge Paez, joined by Chief Justice Mary Schroeder,
who joined in his opinion, have laid down the gauntlet.
I hope the United States Supreme Court takes this
case on appeal, and decides that the three strikes law should apply to people
who commit serious or violent felonies if they have two or more
prior convictions, but should not be applied to people stealing vitamins or
video tapes. I’ve always thought this
was one of the major flaws of this law.
Why is it that the first two strikes, or convictions, have to be serious
or violent felonies, however, the third one can be any type of felony at
all? That didn’t make sense to me when
the law was passed, and it doesn’t make sense to me now. Let the United States Supreme Court modify
the law to apply it in cases where the third conviction is for something
violent or serious, but not for a case such as this.
Charlie Unger is a criminal defense attorney in the Glendale
law firm of Flanagan, Unger, Danis & Grover, and a psychotherapist at the
Foothill Centre for Personal and Family Development. Mr. Unger writes a bimonthly column on legal and psychological
issues. He can be reached at charlie@charlieunger.com.