Guerrero dissents as Supreme Court reinstates trial judge's Three Strikes authority

In a decision that drew a rare dissent from Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero, the state Supreme Court on Monday reversed a 1st District Court of Appeal ruling that had ordered a trial judge to double the sentence of a man convicted of home invasion robbery based on a prior strike conviction.

The appellate court concluded that Sonoma County Superior Court Judge Bradford J. DeMeo abused his discretion in granting Yacob Dawit Dain's Romero motion to eliminate a strike due to his youth at the time of the earlier crime and directed the trial judge to increase his sentence from eight to 16 years.

The Supreme Court considered whether the appellate panel erred by ordering the trial court to reinstate the strike and resentence the defendant under the three strikes law. Justice Leondra R. Kruger, writing for the 6-1 majority, said yes, siding with the authority of trial judges.

"We hold that the proper remedy for the errors in the trial court order granting dismissal of Dain's strike is a remand that allows for further proceedings, as appropriate, on the merits of Dain's Romero motion," she wrote. People v. Dain, 2025 DJDAR 7370 (Cal. S. Ct., filed March 4, 2024).

"We express no views on the merits of the motion, which is a matter for the trial court to decide in the first instance," Kruger added.

Guerrero, citing a 1998 state high court ruling in People v. Williams, 17 Cal.4th 148, disagreed. She wrote that an "open-ended remand" was not justified, adding she would have affirmed the appellate court.

"In particular, the favorable factors that defendant relies on in this case -- including his 'youth at the time of the prior strike,' the allegedly 'minor role he played in the prior strike offense and the current offenses,' and 'his personal history with substance abuse and recovery' -- could not alone or in combination support the striking of a strike here given any reasonable application of the Williams factors," she wrote.

"In my view, the Court of Appeal permissibly directed reinstatement of defendant's strike "under the circumstances" of this case," Guerrero added.

Dain's home invasion conviction in 2019 -- which included charges of assault with a firearm, kidnapping and false imprisonment - has taken several twists from then until Monday's ruling. And it's still not over.

DeMeo found that Dain had two prior strikes, based on 2006 and 2007 convictions for felony participation in an active street gang. He sentenced the defendant to a 30-year "determinative" term as well as an "indeterminate" term of 27 years to life.

The appellate court overruled that, saying the 2006 and 2007 convictions did not automatically qualify as strikes, and sent the case back to DeMeo. Sonoma County prosecutors dropped one of the strikes but the judge dismissed both in 2023, citing lighter sentencing laws passed by the state Legislature.

"I think the Legislature has been very clear that things are different, remoteness does count, and I think under the current case law it's appropriate to strike," he said.

DeMeo sentenced Dain to eight years and eight months in prison, which prosecutors said amounted to credit for time served.

The 1st District panel reversed DeMeo, saying that one of the older strikes should count and directing the trial judge to sentence Dain to 16 years and eight months - concluding there was insufficient evidence that Dain had changed his ways.

Dain's court-appointed attorney, Mi K. Kim of Thousand Oaks, appealed the 1st District's decision to the state high court, arguing that the appellate court panel "usurped the trial court's sentencing role by engaging in improper fact-finding."

Neither Kim nor Sonoma County prosecutors could be reached for comment about Monday's decision.