California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Superior Court (Romero), 13 Cal.4th 497, 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 789, 917 P.2d 628 (Cal. 1996):
I agree that because the "three strikes" statute does not contain "a clear legislative direction to the contrary" (People v. Thomas (1992) 4 Cal.4th 206, 210, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 174,
Page 811
I write separately to disassociate myself from the lengthy discussion whether this statute would violate the separation of powers doctrine if, contrary to our interpretation, it did remove discretion from the trial court. Relying on People v. Tenorio (1970) 3 Cal.3d 89, 89 Cal.Rptr. 249, 473 P.2d 993 and its progeny, the majority effectively decides that such a statute would violate the separation of powers. The majority's statutory interpretation stands on its own and renders the constitutional analysis unnecessary. Moreover, because the statute the majority considers is quite different from that confronted in Tenorio, that analysis is questionable.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.