## Facts

- Jesus Romero was charged with felony possession of 0.13 grams of cocaine base.
- The charging document alleged two prior serious-felony convictions (residential burglary and attempted residential burglary) that qualified as “strikes” and exposed him to a 25-years-to-life sentence under California’s Three Strikes law.
- Before trial, the superior court stated that a 25-to-life sentence for simple possession would be unjust and indicated it would dismiss a strike allegation if Romero pled guilty.
- Over the prosecutor’s objection, the superior court struck both prior-conviction allegations under Penal Code § 1385 and imposed a six-year prison term (upper term for the drug offense without Three Strikes enhancements).
- The People sought writ relief; the Court of Appeal barred the trial court from striking Three Strikes prior allegations absent a prosecutorial motion.
- The California Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the Three Strikes law withdrew or limited the trial court’s § 1385 authority.

## Issues

1. Whether a trial court, in a Three Strikes case, retains authority under Penal Code § 1385(a) to strike prior serious- or violent-felony conviction allegations on its own motion in furtherance of justice.
2. Whether the Three Strikes law implicitly repealed or restricted § 1385’s dismissal/striking power.
3. What limits apply to a trial court’s exercise of § 1385 discretion when striking strike allegations.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal.
- The court held that the Three Strikes law did not repeal or abrogate Penal Code § 1385.
- A trial court may, on its own motion or on the prosecutor’s motion, strike prior-conviction allegations that affect sentencing, including Three Strikes priors, if done in furtherance of justice.
- The exercise of this power requires strict compliance with § 1385’s procedural requirements and remains subject to appellate review for abuse of discretion.

## Legal Principles

- Penal Code § 1385(a) authorizes a trial court, in furtherance of justice, to dismiss a criminal action on the court’s own motion; this includes the lesser power to strike sentencing allegations, such as prior felony conviction allegations.
- Repeal by implication is disfavored; absent clear legislative intent, later-enacted mandatory sentencing statutes are read to coexist with § 1385.
- Mandatory sentencing schemes can be harmonized with § 1385 because § 1385 discretion is constrained by the “furtherance of justice” standard, a requirement to state reasons in the minutes, and abuse-of-discretion review.
- Striking prior allegations under § 1385 is part of the judicial sentencing function and does not improperly intrude on prosecutorial charging authority.

## Conclusion

The court held that trial judges retain Penal Code § 1385 authority in Three Strikes cases to strike prior-strike allegations in furtherance of justice, on the court’s own motion, subject to stated reasons and abuse-of-discretion review.


People v. Superior Court (Romero), 13 Cal. 4th 497, 917 P.2d 628 (Cal. 1996)