How have courts treated a motion to strike a prior conviction for sexual assault against a minor?

Here, the trial court's decision to deny defendant's motion was based on its consideration of all of the relevant facts and a proper exercise of discretion. The strike conviction, while based on remote conduct, also involved a young, vulnerable victim. In addition, the remoteness of the strike prior is only one of many factors the court may consider in determining if the prior will be stricken. (See People v. Philpot (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 893, 906 [although strike priors were remote, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Romero motion].) While the prior conduct in this case was remote, the conviction was not, and defendant was on probation for that conviction when he committed the crime in this case. The fact that defendant molested a child while he was on probation for similar, albeit more serious, conduct is "a strong indication of unwillingness or inability to comply with the law." (Ibid.)

Defendant argues that the court should have granted the motion because the conduct in his case was de minimis, implying that it was a relatively minor felony. While it is true that a court could "be justified in striking prior conviction allegations with respect to a relatively minor current felony," it does so "while considering those prior convictions with respect to a serious or violent current felony." (People v. Garcia (1999)

Page 6