1

Filed 4/12/23 P. v. White CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a) , prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.11 15.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

EDWARD WHITE, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant. E078678

(Super.Ct.No. FWV024044)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Kyle S. Brodie,

Judge. Affirmed.

Jan B. Norman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney

General, Ch arles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher P. Beesley and

Warren J. Williams, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.2

Edward White

, Jr.

, appeals from the sentence he received after the trial court

granted his petition for re sentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6. (Unlabeled

statutory references are to this code.) White contends that the trial court abused its

discretion by not striking one of his prior strike convictions. We disagree and affirm.

BACKGROUND

In 2000, Wh ite “ was the getaway driver for an armed bank robbery in which an

armored car guard was killed. ” ( In re White (June 10, 2021, E075760) [nonpub. opn.].)

A jury convicted White of first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a))

, robbery (§ 211)

, and

burglary (§ 459)

. It also found true the special circumstance allegation s that the murder

was committed during a robbery and a burglary (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17) (A), (G) ) and the

enhancement allegation that a principal was armed during the commission o f the offense

(§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)). The jury further found that White suffered two prior strike

convictions and two prison priors. (§§ 667, subds. (b)

- (i), 667.5, 1170.12, subds. (a)

- (d).)

( In re White

, supra , E075760.) White was sentenced to life i mprisonment without the

possibility of parole plus 5 3 years to life. We affirmed the conviction s and sentence in a n

un published opinion

. ( People v. White (Dec. 29, 2004, E034088) [nonpub. opn.].)

In 2021, we granted White’s petition for writ of habeas c orpus

. We concluded that

there was insufficient evidence under People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 and People

v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522 to support the major participant and reckless indifference

requirements of the special circumstance findings. ( In re White

, supra , E075760

. ) We

found that there was no evidence that White had supplied the shooter with the weapon

,

that White was armed

, or that he knew before the robbery that the shooter planned to use3

a gun, let alone a loaded gun, duri ng the robbery. During the robbery, White remained in

a car in the bank’s parking lot

. W e found that

, given White’s location during the robbery

and killing

, White was not able to prevent the guard from being shot or to assist the guard

after he was shot. We also found that there was no evidence that White had any

awareness that the shooter had a propensity for violence or was likely to use lethal force.

We thus granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus, vacated the true findings on the

robbery

- murder and burglary

- murder special circumstances, and remanded for

resentencing

.

When White was resentenced, he also had a petition for resentencing under section

1172.6 pending. The court held a hearing on the petition in March 2022. T he prosec utor

conceded that White was entitled to resentencing because he had been convicted of first

degree murder under a felony

- murder theory , a now

- invalid theory under sections 188

and 189 , given that the special circumstance findings were vacated . The trial court

agreed and granted the petition

. The court and the parties agreed that White sh ould be

sentenced on the robbery count with the sentence on the burglary count stayed under

section 654.

The primary issue of dispute in re sentencin g involved White’s two prior strike

convictions. Before the hearing, White moved to strike one of the prior strike s under

People v. Superior Court ( Romero ) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 ( Romero )

. Attached to the

motion were the transcript from the 1989 plea hearing, the probation officer’s report for

those offenses, and a copy of our unpublished opinion in the habeas proceeding. T he4

court also was provided with a transcript of the preliminary hearing from the 1989

convictions.

White had suffered two prior strike convictions in 1989, more than 10 years before

the bank robbery. White was 20 years old when the offenses were committed. In 1989,

White pleaded no contest to two counts of assault with a deadly weapon

— a firearm

(§ 245

, subd. (a) ) and agreed that the preliminary hearing transcript provided a factual

basis for the plea. At the preliminary hearing, a witness testified that one night in

September 1989, he heard a “popping sound” in the parking lot of a sandwich shop and

then saw about 10 male individuals shooting at each other. Two of the men had guns,

and one was shooting. After firing at a particular car

, the shooter dove into another car

that drove by. Another witness testified that White was driving a car at the sc ene and that

another person in that car was shooting.

The probation officer’s report for White’s sentencing in 2003 indicated that White

suffered the following additional convictions: (1) in 1987, one misdemeanor conviction

of violating section 537e (possession of stolen property) and (2) in 1995, one felony

conviction of violating Health and Safety Code section 11377 (possession of marijuana).

White violated parole three times between 1991 and 1999

, when he was discharged from

parole

. At the resent encing hearing, the prosecutor introduced White’s rap sheet, which

the court admitted over the defense’s objection

. In 2012, White was convicted of a

felony violat ion of section 4502

, subdivision (a), for possessing a weapon while in prison.

In the Romero motion and at the re sentencing hearing, defense counsel argued that

one of the 1989 assault convictions should be stricken because the convictions arose out5

of the same incident

. Defense counsel repeatedly emphasized that White was 20 years

old whe n he committed the offenses

, that the 1989 offenses were committed 10 years

before the bank robbery

, and that White had already served 20 years in prison for the

bank robbery

. Defense counsel also argued that White ’s criminal history was otherwise

insignificant

.

The court declined to strike either of the prior strike s and sentenced White to 26

years to life in state prison. The trial judge had read and considered the preliminary

hearing transcript from the 1989 convictions

. The judge was bothered by the fact that in

1989 White had driven “a car full of people to a shooting,” which could have resulted in

multiple deaths

, although by “some minor miracle” no one was shot. The court then

noted that, after being released from prison for the assault convictions, White spent

“some time on parole” and “some time violating parole” and not following the rules.

“Then ten years later, he’s driving someone again to commit a robbery, and there’s

ambiguity abou t what he knew and leading up to it and it’s disputed about whether a

person was armed or a murder was in the offing. I get all that. But it’s like

, you’re doing

it again. [¶] Did you not understand that you’re not supposed to drive people places to

com mit crimes? [¶] And in this one

, someone ends up dead.” The court contrasted

White’s case with one case in which a defendant had committed a “robbery 20 years

before the current crime that present[ed] a very different set of facts” and another in

which a defendant “committed a crime as a young man, and now as an older man having

[ led ] a law

- abiding life from the intervening years finds himself back in the criminal

justice system.” In contrast, the court explained that White’s case “feels like it’s the6

same thing. And it’s not that long after he did it before. And there’s not a long period of

law

- abiding behavior in between.”

In addition, t he court agreed with the prosecution that the fact that there had been

two victims in the 1989 incident was significant for considering whether to strik e one of

the strikes. And the court indicat ed that White’s postincarceration conviction for

possessing a weapon while in prison indicated that White was “still kind of running his

own program if you will.”

The court concluded: “And I guess I end where I started,

. . . which is that fact,

the factu al similarity between the prior strikes and the current crime, I just cannot get

around that. [¶] And I cannot in good conscience find that [White] falls outside the spirit

of the three strikes law given that he drove people to a parking lot so that this shooting

could take place and then roughly 10 years later

, while not having a perfectly law

- abiding

life in the interim, drives [the bank robbery shooter] to a robbery. I mean this is a repeat

of essentially the same criminal activity is of what recidivism statutes are there to

sanction and to prevent and yet here we are.”

DISCUSSION

White contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion

to strike a prior strike conviction under section 1385

, subdivision (a) and Romero

, s upra

,

13 Cal.4th 497. We disagree

.

The purpose of the Three Strikes law is “ to ensure longer prison sentences and

greater punishment for those who commit a felony and have been previously convicted of

one or more serious or violent felony offenses .” (§ 667, subd. (b).) It “ establishes a7

sentencing norm ” of longer sentences for repeat offenders and “carefully circumscribes

the trial court ’ s power to depart from this norm a nd requires the court to explicitly justify

its decision to do so .” ( People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 37 8 ( Carmony ).) “ In

doing so, the law creates a strong presumption that any sentence that conforms to these

sentencing norms is both rational and proper. ” ( Ibid. )

A trial court nevertheless may, “in furtherance of justice,” strike a prior conviction

under the Three Strikes l aw. (§ 1385

, subd. (a); Romero

, supra

, 13 Cal.4th at pp. 529

-

530.) In considering whether to strike a prior strike conviction, the trial court “must

consider whether, in light of the nature and circumstances of his present felonies and

prior serious and/or violent felony convictions, and the particulars of his background,

character

, and prospects, the defendant may be deemed outside the [Three Strikes l aw’s]

spirit, in whole or in part, and hence should be treated as though he had not previously

been convicted of one or more serious and/or violent felonies.” ( People v. Williams

(19 98) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161.) Only “extraordinary ” circumstances warrant finding that a

defendant who is a career criminal “falls outside the spirit of the three strikes scheme.”

( Carmony

, supra

, 33 Cal.4th at p. 37 8 ; People v. Philpot (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 893,

907.)

We review the trial court’s decision for an abuse of discretion. ( Carmony

, supra

,

33 Cal.4th at p. 375.) It is the defendant’s burden on appeal to “‘“ show that the

sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary. ”’” ( Id. at p. 376.) Absent “‘“ such a

showing, the trial court is presumed to have acted to achieve legitimate sentencing

objectives, and its discretionary determination to impose a particular sentence will not be8

set aside on review.”’” (

Id. at pp. 376

- 377.) In addition, we will not reverse a trial

court’s sentencing decision “‘“merely because reasonable people might disagree. ‘An

appellate tribunal is neither authorized nor warranted in substituting its judgment for the

judgment of the trial judge.’”’” ( Id. at p. 377.) “Taken together, these precepts establish

that a trial court does not abuse its discretion unless its decision is so irrational or

arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it.” ( Ibid. ) Put another way, when

the relevant factors “ manifestly support the striking of a prior conviction and no

reasonable minds could differ

— the failure to strike would constitute an abuse of

discretion. ” (

Id. at p. 378.)

We cannot say that the trial court’s decision was “so irrational or arbitrary that no

reasonable person could agree with it.” ( Carmony

, supra

, 33 Cal.4th at p. 377.) T he trial

judge’s comments in denying the Romero motion show that the trial court consid ered the

relevant factors, including the serious and violent nature and circumstances of White’s

past and present offenses

, the similarity of the offenses, the proximity in time between the

offe nses, White’s criminal history of multiple parole violations b etween the strikes and

the bank robbery

, a postincarceration conviction for possessing a weapon in prison, and

White’s character

, including his failure to abide by the rules of his parole and his inability

to learn from his prior mistakes

. Considering the relevant factors, the court found that

White’s repeated behavior of driving people to commit violent crimes ( the most recent

resulting in someone’s death) was precisely the type of recidivist conduct that warranted

a harsher sentence under the Three Strikes law. We cannot say that the court’s

determination amounted to an abuse of discretion.9

White first argues that the trial court “misplaced focus on [the] prior strike

convictions” by focusing on the similarities between White’s involvement in the 1989

assault offenses and the bank robbery , rather than focusing on the fact that the two 1989

offenses arose from the same incident. (Boldfac e and initial capitalization omitted.) We

disagree

. The trial judge discussed the 1989 convictions at l ength

. Moreover, when

defense counsel argued that he viewed the 1989 convictions as White “pick[ing] up two

strikes in one act,” the court responded, “Two victims, though.” The court agreed with

the prosecutor that the fact that there were two victims wa s significant. Thus, although

the court was aware that the convictions arose out of the same incident , it permissibly

considered the convictions worthy of two strikes because there were two victims.

( People v. Rusconi (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 273, 277

- 281 [ multiple strikes appropriate

when multiple convictions arise out of a single act that injure s more than one victim ]

. )

We cannot say that refusing to strike a prior conviction on that basis was irrational or

arbitrary, so the trial court’s conclusion did not constitute an abuse of discretion.

White next argues that the trial court abused its discretion by fail ing to consider

factors relevant to the underlying bank robbery conviction. The argument lacks merit. In

support of th e argument, White focuses on the representations that the prosecutor made to

the trial court about White’s role in the bank robbery, which White claims were at odds

with this court’s fin dings when we granted White’s habeas petition. The prosecutor’s

characterization of White’s role in the bank robbery does not matter unless the trial court

indicated that it agreed with that characterization. And there is no indication that the trial

cou rt did. Rather, the trial court repeatedly noted that what was known about White’s10

role in the bank robbery was that he drove the shooter to the bank and drove him away

from the bank. Th e court’s description is not inconsistent with this court’s opinion

concerning White’s role.

White’s final argument is that the trial court failed to consider other mitigating

factors such as his age, the length of time between offenses, that White had already

served 21 years for the bank robbery

, and his criminal histor y

. This argument too lacks

merit

. As to White’s criminal history and the length of time between the offenses, t he

trial court noted that after being in prison for the 1989 convictions White had spent

“some time on parole” and “some time violating parole.” Defense counsel attempted to

explain and to minimize what led to the violations, and the court noted that the violations

indicated that White failed to abide by the rules

. The court also believed that White’s

postincarceration convicti on for possessing a weapon indicated that White still did not

follow the rules. In addition , the court stated that it did not believe that the period

between the two offenses was that long. Thus, contrary to White’s suggestion, the court

explicitly consi dered the amount of time between the strikes and the bank robbery

, as

well as White’s criminal history. T he court did not mention White’s age when he

committed the 1989 offenses or the amount of time he had already served for the bank

robbery , but that do es not mean that the trial court did not consider th os e factors.

Defense counsel repeatedly emphasized those points at the hearing. For example

,

defense counsel argued that the trial court had the discretion to “make a decision of

what’s going to happen to [White] in the next 10 years, and should it be based on

something that he did as a 20

- year old when even with two strikes, he’s got a sizeable11

sentence that he’s done, and he has done 20 years of his life.” O n this record, we cannot

say that the court failed to consider White’s age when he committed the 1989 offenses or

the amount of time he had already served for the bank robbery conviction. (See People v.

Brugman (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 608, 638

– 639 [rejecting the defendant’s argument that

the trial court did not consider relevant factors ].)

For all of these reasons, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion

by refusing to strike either of White’s prior strike convictions.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLI SHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

MENETREZ

J.

We concur:

McKINSTER

Acting P. J.

MILLER

J.