The opinion
Filed 5/8/26 P. v. Allen CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
THE PEOPLE, C102666
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. No. 24FE008999)
v.
DOMENICK DUPRE ALLEN,
Defendant and Appellant.
A jury found defendant Domenick Dupre Allen guilty of false imprisonment and
inflicting corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition. In a bifurcated proceeding,
the trial court found true an allegation that defendant had a prior conviction that qualified
as a strike under the “Three Strikes” law. After denying defendant’s Romero1 motion to
strike that prior conviction, the trial court sentenced him to 10 years in prison.
On appeal, defendant’s sole contention is that the trial court erred in denying his
Romero motion. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant and Regina D. had an on-and-off relationship for 20 years, and they
lived together in Rancho Cordova. One night while Regina slept, defendant came home
and told her to get up. When Regina got up, defendant grabbed her arm and pushed her
1 People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero).
1
along. They got into Regina’s car, and defendant drove them around for about an hour
before stopping in downtown Sacramento. During the drive, defendant swore at Regina,
told her he was going to kill her, and hit her several times in the back of the head and in
the jaw. Defendant told Regina to get out of the car and, after she refused, he pushed her
out. Defendant drove away, leaving Regina on the street in her pajamas and without her
cell phone. She went to a nearby business and an employee called 911. As a result of
defendant’s assault, Regina had a one-quarter inch long cut on the inside of her lip. She
did not receive any medical treatment.
After the incident and before trial, defendant called Regina several times. In the
calls, defendant told Regina her actions pushed him into hitting her. Regina told
defendant he wants to hit her to maintain control, which defendant denied. She told him
she was unhappy in the relationship and was afraid of him. He told her she was going to
get happy, there was no way out of their relationship, and she was afraid because she did
“fucked up shit” that made him react. He said she had no way out of the relationship. He
also told her to avoid getting served with a subpoena. They discussed other times
defendant had punched her.
A jury found defendant guilty of false imprisonment, the lesser included offense of
kidnapping, and inflicting corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition. The jury
found true two aggravating factors and an allegation that defendant had been previously
convicted of corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition within the last seven years.
The trial court found true defendant had a prior strike conviction, a prior serious felony
conviction, and two aggravating factors.
Defendant filed a Romero motion, asking the trial court to strike the prior strike
conviction pursuant to Penal Code2 section 1385. He argued that striking his 2018 strike
2 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
prior for robbery was appropriate because his current offenses were relatively minor and
the sentence’s severity was disproportionate to the current offenses.
The prosecution responded, arguing defendant’s motion should be denied based on
his current offenses and background, which demonstrated defendant was a habitual
offender; posed a danger to society; and failed to take responsibility for his actions,
instead calling the victim from jail in the current case and engaging in “manipulative,
assaultive, and aggressive behavior.” The prosecution summarized defendant’s criminal
history: Since 2010, defendant had numerous felony convictions, including pandering,
attempted grand theft, pimping, failure to register as a sex offender, robbery, defrauding
another by false pretenses, and two convictions for vehicle theft. The prosecutor also
highlighted defendant’s history of parole and probation violations, including that
defendant committed the current offenses while on parole. The prosecutor further argued
defendant’s 2018 prior strike conviction for robbery was not remote because defendant
failed to consistently comply with the law.
After considering the parties’ arguments, the trial court declined to strike the prior
conviction, noting Williams3 provided the proper analytical framework. The trial court
considered the circumstances of the current offenses, including defendant’s controlling
behavior and the traumatic nature of the offenses. It next discussed defendant’s criminal
history, finding defendant had “a pretty steady diet of” criminality spanning “a solid
decade,” and that his prior strike conviction for robbery was a violent felony. The trial
court further found defendant had not rehabilitated or reformed during his prior prison
terms, nor had he expressed remorse or taken responsibility for his actions. Instead,
defendant called the victim from jail, during which he engaged in manipulative and
verbally assaultive behavior and told her to avoid being subpoenaed. Noting defendant’s
3 People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148 (Williams).
3
prior convictions for pimping, pandering, false imprisonment, and domestic violence, the
trial court found defendant posed a danger to public safety and to women in particular, as
also demonstrated by the present offense. Based on this, the trial court found defendant
fell squarely within the spirit of the Three Strikes law under Williams and declined to
strike his prior strike.
The trial court sentenced defendant for the inflicting corporal injury conviction to
the upper term of five years, doubled to 10 years for the prior strike. It imposed and
stayed 180 days in jail for the false imprisonment conviction.
Defendant appeals.
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his Romero motion.
Specifically, he argues it was in the interest of justice to strike his prior strike conviction
based on the relatively minor nature of the current offenses and the disproportionality of
the sentence imposed. We disagree.
Section 1385, subdivision (a) gives the trial court authority, on its own motion or
upon application of the prosecution, “and in furtherance of justice,” to order an action
dismissed. In Romero, our Supreme Court held that a trial court may utilize section 1385
to strike or dismiss a prior strike for purposes of sentencing under the Three Strikes law.
(Romero, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 504.) A trial court’s ruling denying a request to dismiss
a prior strike allegation “is subject to review under the deferential abuse of discretion
standard.” (People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 374 (Carmony).)
“In reviewing for abuse of discretion, we are guided by two fundamental precepts.
First, ‘ “[t]he burden is on the party attacking the sentence to clearly show that the
sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary. [Citation.] In the absence of such a
showing, the trial court is presumed to have acted to achieve legitimate sentencing
objectives, and its discretionary determination to impose a particular sentence will not be
set aside on review.” ’ [Citations.] Second, a ‘ “decision will not be reversed merely
4
because reasonable people might disagree. ‘An appellate tribunal is neither authorized
nor warranted in substituting its judgment for the judgment of the trial judge.’ ” ’
[Citations.] Taken together, these precepts establish that a trial court does not abuse its
discretion unless its decision is so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could
agree with it.” (Carmony, supra, 33 Cal.4th at pp. 376-377.)
In Carmony, our Supreme Court explained: “ ‘[T]he Three Strikes law does not
offer a discretionary sentencing choice, as do other sentencing laws, but establishes a
sentencing requirement to be applied in every case where the defendant has at least one
qualifying strike, unless the sentencing court “conclud[es] that an exception to the
scheme should be made because, for articulable reasons which can withstand scrutiny for
abuse, this defendant should be treated as though he[, she, or they] actually fell outside
the Three Strikes scheme.” ’ ” (Carmony, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 377.) The
circumstances where no reasonable people could disagree that the criminal falls outside
the spirit of the Three Strikes scheme must be extraordinary. (Id. at p. 378.) Reversal is
justified where the trial court was unaware of its discretion to dismiss a prior strike or
considered impermissible factors in declining to dismiss. (Ibid.) But where the trial
court, aware of its discretion, “ ‘balanced the relevant facts and reached an impartial
decision in conformity with the spirit of the law, we shall affirm the trial court’s ruling,
even if we might have ruled differently in the first instance.’ ” (Ibid.)
In deciding whether to dismiss a prior strike allegation, a trial court “must consider
whether, in light of the nature and circumstances of his[, her, or their] present felonies
and prior serious and/or violent felony convictions, and the particulars of his[, her, or
their] background, character, and prospects, the defendant may be deemed outside the
scheme’s spirit, in whole or in part, and hence should be treated as though he[, she, or
they] had not previously been convicted of one or more serious and/or violent felonies.”
(Williams, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 161.)
5
We find no abuse of discretion here. The record shows the trial court considered
the nature and circumstances of the current offense, finding defendant’s actions
controlling and traumatic. As to defendant’s criminal history, the trial court found
defendant had not rehabilitated or reformed during his prior prison terms and noted his
prior strike conviction for robbery. The trial court also considered defendant’s lack of
remorse and responsibility for his actions, including calling the victim from jail to
encourage her to avoid being subpoenaed in this case. It also found defendant to be a
danger to public safety, particularly as to women. Based on these considerations, the trial
court found defendant fell squarely within the spirit of the Three Strikes law under
Williams. Given the high level of deference afforded to the trial court and defendant’s
demonstrated inability to comply with the rules of society, we conclude the court’s
decision was not “so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it.”
(Carmony, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 377.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/
ROBIE, J.
We concur:
/s/
HULL, Acting P. J.
/s/
WISEMAN, J.*
* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned
by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
6