Opinion ID: 2545785
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Effect of Passage of Three Strikes Law

Text: Defendant contends the Three Strikes law (§ 667, subds.(b)-(i)) abolished the death penalty for those defendants convicted of murder with special circumstances and having one or more prior convictions for serious or violent felonies. Although defendant himself does not fall into this category, he argues that if the death penalty may not be imposed on those with prior serious or violent felonies, to impose the death penalty on defendants with no such convictions, such as himself, would violate equal protection principles. We have held, however, that the Three Strikes law does not abolish the death penalty for those with prior convictions for serious or violent felonies. ( People v. Alvarez (1996) 14 Cal.4th 155, 246-247, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 385, 926 P.2d 365; see also People v. Williams (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 446, 457-458, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 730.) It therefore follows that imposition of the death penalty on those who have no such convictions does not violate equal protection. Defendant argues that our opinion in Alvarez ignored subdivisions (c) and (f)(1) of section 667, each of which states that the penalties specified by the Three Strikes law, which do not include death, shall be applied [notwithstanding any other law.... Those provisions, however, do not override subdivision (e) of section 667, which states that the increased penalties called for by the Three Strikes law shall be imposed in addition to any other enhancement or punishment provisions which may apply....