Two Attacks Thirty Minutes Apart, Is It One or Two Strikes?

On the evening of July 20, 2010, Harley Paul Finney stabbed Chad Robinson more than ten times.  Robinson almost died.  During Finney’s trial in San Luis Obispo Superior Court, the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict on the attempted murder charge, but did return a guilty verdict for assault with a deadly weapon (Penal Code § 245 (a) (1) with a finding that Finney inflicted  great bodily injury on the victim (Penal Code § 12022.7 (a).

The complaint against Finney also alleged that, in 1999, he suffered two prior strikes as a juvenile for mayhem and an assault on a sixty year old homeless man.  Finney allegedly beat the man with a skateboard and kicked him in the head in two episodes thirty minutes apart.  When the plea to this prior case was entered, Finney acknowledged that the “convictions” (there are no “convictions” in juvenile court) qualified as two strikes.  

Prior to sentencing in his case involving Chad Robinson, Finney filed a motion to ask the judge to treat the two strikes as one strike.  The argument was that both strikes arose from a single criminal act and that under People v. Burgos (2009) 117 Cal. App. 4th1209, the court should consider it as one strike, not two.

The trial court first reviewed the facts of the juvenile matter.  It noted that Finney left the victim for dead after beating him with his skateboard and crushing his skull.  He then returned thirty minutes later and kicked the victim three times in the head when he discovered the homeless man was still alive.  In other words, there was a clear break between the two incidents. They were separate and distinguishable from Burgos’ facts, which were a carjacking and a robbery that the court deemed merged as one act.  As such, the trial court denied Finney’s request that the court treat the prior incident as one strike.

In sentencing Finney for his stabbing of Robinson, the judge considered it a “Three Strikes” case, and as a third strike, sentenced him to 29 years to life.

Finney then appealed, claiming the trial court made a mistake in denying what Finney called a “Burgos Motion.”  The Second Appellate District, in People v. Harley Paul Finney (2012 DJDAR 4331), agreed with the trial court, saying the two attacks were not part of a continuous course of conduct at all.

Moreover, the Appellate Court noted, had Finney brought his motion under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 cal. 4th 497, the trial court would have been correct to deny a request to strike a strike.  The appellate court explained that Finney had “an extensive criminal record” dating back to age fourteen.  He had two separate prior convictions for beating up and robbing other homeless men.  Finney also had a record for beating up a California Youth Authority (CYA) staff member and was involved in nine fights during his seven years in custody.  In other words, the court found that Finney fit the type of career criminal that the Three Strikes Law (Penal Code §§ 667(b) to (j) and 1170.12) intended to reach.

For more information about sentencing on strikes, click on the following articles:
  1. Eighth Amendment Challenge to Three Strikes Law Fails
  2. Appeals Court Holds, in Ruling on a Romero Motion, that There Is No Automatic Dismissal for Strikes Arising from Same Act
  3. Resentencing a Three Strikes Sentence Often Involves Difficult Document Gathering Challenges
Contact Greg Hill & Associates
Client Reviews
Thank you so much for putting so much effort in this case. We really appreciate it and we are happy that all turned out well.
★★★★★
Greg Hill did an outstanding job on every level. He was efficient, thorough, knowledgeable, courteous, responsive & brilliant. He welcomed my input and my concerns. . . from the first conversation to the last - I always felt 'it mattered' to him. S.C., Rolling Hills Estates
★★★★★
Thanks again for your hard work. We want you to know that we are very appreciative of all that you have done [on our son's] behalf. With warmest regards, L.H., Torrance
★★★★★
Dear Greg, Thank you again for all your help. Your professionalism and thoroughness is greatly admired. I will definitely recommend you to my friends if they ever need legal help. V.L., Carson
★★★★★
Thanks for investing in my case. I talked to other attorneys out there and they had an arms-length of attitude, but not you. Your intensity and interest helped a lot. C.R., Pomona
★★★★★