particularly when compared against that of the other three strikes offenders and taking into account the facts behind the prior strikes not just necessarily the legal definitions of the strikes  certainly consider drunk driving to be a serious crime however in this case nobody was hurt and more importantly as this court talked about and raised brown drunk driving is not a crime targeted at another individual the castro mr and here is had two prior robbery strikes and the court said that they were more akin to confrontation petty theft and robbery because there was no real violence involved and what was his third his third strike was a petty committed both of his prior strikes when he was very not twenty twenty one years old since then he has a history of non strike offenses mainly drug and alcohol related offenses which are more a function of his drug and hundred four and since then everything has been the majority at least has been drug and alcohol related crimes and in this case as i stated it is nonviolent there was no injury honor however the situation remains still that he's looking at twenty five years to life for a dui something that normally would receive in california at least between wanting three years in jail or state pri of twenty five years he will not be eligible for all for twenty five years and he's turning out for a crime which normally would be punishable by very much less time ok i think we have your argument in hand here working into your two minutes why don't we hear from the other side  harm to society and that clearly is the case with mr seagal as current events with his drunk driving and all of the other consequences of his truck driving i'd like to point out to the court went back before the argument and just double check the record i don't know whether the entire clerk's transcript was lodged with this quarter or not i i did not put it in my excerpts i don't believe it's  however the abstract of judgment was in the clerk's transcript and it shows that the prior burglary and rape were the result of a plea bargain where petitioner received two years for both crimes concern i should say two merely prosecuted together the record the record does not show that there was one trial which led which resulted in the one plea to the two prices i don't have any factual there was a trial and there wasn't a trial i should say the trial episode could that lead to strikes yes your honor so you can you can get two strikes out of the same episode if you commit two crimes during the same episode that is correct so if i have somebody who breaks into a house yes unless your court has unless your honor has any further questions i'd like to move on to the next point i mean just with regard to petitioners criminal history i would also like to point out and the record does show this that  a committed the instant offense for days after he was released from state custody on parole and in the ten years between his rate burglary conviction which was his first his rights to the time he committed the instant d offense in that's in your period there were a host of criminal a host of convictions and jail time and he certainly is fits within the idea of the career criminal the repeat offender that the three strikes factual circumstances of those robberies showed the amount of force used in the prior strikes was kind of was minimal whereas in the present case although we don't have this specific facts of the really itself the burglary strike we can tell just by the statutory definition and elements afraid that that prior strike involved very serious conduct i don't have your honor i think that the state and certainty as to whether or not there was a trial or not a trial or whether or not these offenses were planned sort of points to the conclusion that we of consent it's the thrust of rape yes your honor however the raised court would seem to differ with that respectfully by stating that regardless of what the legal definition of the crime is we have to know the factual circumstances