People v. Dain
Annotate this Case
In a case before the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Two, the court analyzed a second appeal involving a defendant, Yacob Dain, who was found guilty of home invasion robbery, kidnapping, assault with a firearm, and other offenses. The trial court also found that he had two prior convictions for active gang participation that qualified as strikes under the Three Strikes law.
Following a first appeal, the court remanded the matter for resentencing. The prosecution retried only one of the prior convictions, which was again found to be a strike and a serious felony conviction. The trial court then granted Dain's motion to dismiss the prior strike conviction. The People appealed this decision, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the prior strike conviction for purposes of the Three Strikes law.
Dain argued that Penal Code section 1385, subdivision (c), which directs trial courts to consider specified mitigating circumstances when deciding whether to dismiss an “enhancement” in furtherance of justice, should apply to decisions about dismissing a prior strike conviction under the Three Strikes law. However, the appeal court disagreed with this argument, stating that section 1385(c) does not apply to the decision whether to dismiss a strike under the Three Strikes law.
The court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the prior strike conviction because Dain cannot be deemed outside the spirit of the Three Strikes law. However, the court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision to dismiss the five-year enhancement under section 667(a) and imposing the middle term for the principal offense of home invasion robbery.
The court reversed the order dismissing the prior strike conviction and remanded the case for the trial court to resentence Dain as a person who has suffered one prior strike conviction.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.