(Super. Ct. No. NCR79468)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robie , Acting P. J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Defendant Aaron Tyler Glynn pled no contest to unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle and admitted two prior serious felony allegations under the three strikes law. (Pen. Code, §§ 667, 1170.12.) The trial court denied defendant's Romero*fn1 motion to strike a prior serious felony conviction and sentenced him to 25 years to life in prison.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying his Romero motion and his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. We find no merit in either contention and affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 13, 2010, defendant took a pickup truck that did not belong to him and led law enforcement authorities on a high-speed chase on a highway for 10 to 11 miles. Defendant reached speeds of 110 miles per hour and at times drove into the oncoming lane. He lost control of the truck and slid off the road after three of his tires were deflated by a "hollow spike strip" that an officer placed on the road in his path.
An information charged defendant with four felonies: unlawful taking or driving a vehicle, receiving stolen property, evading an officer, and possession of a controlled substance. Defendant pled no contest to the unlawful taking or driving a vehicle. Under the three strikes law, defendant also admitted two prior 2007 convictions for serious felonies.*fn2 (Pen. Code, §§ 667, 1170.12.)
Before sentencing, defendant filed a Romero motion to strike one of his admitted prior convictions under the three strikes law. At sentencing, defendant acknowledged his "horrendous" and "dismal" record by age 30 and that his conduct in driving 110 miles per hour with officers chasing him posed "the risk of death, great bodily injury, violence." Defendant contended, however, that he did not fit "the paradigm or the model that the three strikes law was created for" and was "not the kind of person [who] has gone out and gone about beating people or striking people or being a violent person." Defendant cited as mitigating factors his drug addiction, abuse, and dysfunction, as well as the fact that the residential burglaries constituting his prior serious felony strikes "arose from a single period of aberrant behavior where he served a single prison term."
The People, in turn, pointed to defendant's lengthy record of felonies, prison sentences, and parole violations and argued he was "a poster child for why we have the three strikes law."
The trial court acknowledged it was "not a real fan of the three strikes law when it applies to new convictions, not serious and violen[t] felonies," but was required to follow the three strikes law. The trial court listed "three serious and, frankly, insurmountable problems" to granting defendant's Romero motion.
First, the court noted defendant had "18 felony convictions, not including the strike convictions" in 11 years and for most of that time, defendant was in custody, in jail, or in prison. "[T]hat's 18 felony convictions in a very limited period of time where he is putting society at risk." Second, defendant had three previous convictions for evading a police officer, and although he was not convicted of that crime in the present case despite having been so charged, the ...