Parolee Is O.C.’s First ‘3 Strikes’ Defendant : Crime: Santa Ana resident, accused in shooting at bar, has prior convictions on robbery and assault charges.

A parolee with a history of violence earned the dubious distinction Tuesday as the first Orange County defendant charged under the new “three strikes” law that sends repeat offenders away for life.

Mario Veliz Rodriguez, 30, of Santa Ana, is scheduled to be arraigned today in West Orange County Municipal Court on assault and weapon charges. He is accused of shooting a Garden Grove man in the face with a flare gun after a barroom dispute Sunday night.

Rodriguez, who has prior convictions on charges of felony assault with intent to commit murder and second-degree robbery, faces a sentence of 25 years to life in prison if convicted of the new charges. Rodriguez also has prior convictions on misdemeanor driving violations including drunk driving.

“This individual will be out of the game for a number of innings,” said Orange County Dist. Atty. Michael R. Capizzi, who said the law is designed for repeat offenders such as Rodriguez. “Certainly by having this person off the streets, it will be a step toward making it a safer county.”

While facing the prospect of life in prison, Rodriguez unwittingly finds himself at the center of a heated debate over the new measure signed into law earlier this month by Gov. Pete Wilson. Orange County officials say they are gearing up for increased criminal trials for felony defendants who fear entering a guilty plea will add another strike to their record.

And Presiding Orange County Superior Court Judge James L. Smith said he has prepared a contingency plan if the system is flooded with criminal trials. The casualty will be civil trials.

“If need be, we will have to shut down civil operations,” Smith said.

All sides agree that the full brunt of the new law is unknown.

What’s certain is this: Before the “three-strikes” measure, Rodriguez would have faced a maximum of 14 years in prison if convicted, and would probably have served only half that term with credit for work and good behavior. If convicted under the new law, Rodriquez must serve at least 20 years in prison before becoming eligible for parole, Capizzi said.

Described as the toughest and most sweeping criminal sentencing law in state history, the measure mandates a prison sentence of 25 years to life or three times the sentence for a third felony conviction.

The law also increases prison time that must be served for first- and second-time felony offenders who in the past have gained release after serving only half their sentences for felony convictions. An especially controversial aspect of the new law is its application to juveniles as young as 16.

Supporters say the law will put repeat offenders behind bars, protecting the public from the crimes they would have committed while on the street. The measure has widespread support among law enforcement officials and a public sickened by tales of repeat offenders released from prison only to kill again.

Opponents say the law is a foolhardy measure that will cost the taxpayers millions and clog the court system with defendants who formerly would have plea bargained but will now go to trial when charged with a third felony.

“It’s a stunning piece of stupidity,” said Assistant Public Defender Michael Giannini, who said the law is too far-reaching and lumps youthful offenders and nonviolent felons in the same category as murderers.

County Administrative Officer Ernie Schneider has given Orange County agencies--including the public defender and district attorney--30 days to document how the law may impact their departments.

“I think it’s clear you will have people who will refuse to plead guilty and will demand trials,” Schneider said Tuesday, “so that means more courtrooms, judges, prosecutors, public defenders, investigators. It has the potential to affect us across the board, so we’re trying to take a heads-up on this and figure it out.”

Others question whether the measure will be a deterrent.

“I think deterrence only works with respect to getting caught, not to the possible punishment,” said Prof. Jack Luellen, who teaches criminal law and procedure at Western State University College of Law in Fullerton. “But the mood in the state at the moment, and the country, is certainly anti-crime. People are demanding that something be done.”

According to court records, Rodriguez’s first brush with the law took place in November, 1979, when he was 16 and faced adult charges. After a defense attorney raised questions about his mental capacity, Rodriquez pleaded guilty to felony assault with intent to commit murder and use of a knife in June, 1980.

He escaped a prison term, however, and was instead sentenced to seven years in the California Youth Authority.

His second strike came in November, 1990, when he and two co-defendants attacked a man and stole his wallet. He pleaded guilty to second-degree felony robbery and was sentenced to two years in prison, according to court records.

According to law enforcement officials, Rodriquez--who also has prior misdemeanor convictions for drunk driving and hit-and-run driving--walked up to the plate Sunday, swung and missed again.

Rodriguez was at Sugars, a Garden Grove bar, when he got into an argument and was asked to leave because of drunkenness and disorderly conduct, officials said. He returned carrying a flare pistol, police said.

Following a scuffle, he shot Donald Moore of Garden Grove in the face--grazing Moore’s cheek, according to Investigator Mike Bedard, who said Moore is recovering from his wounds.

Police said Rodriquez was subdued by patrons and held until officers arrived. He is charged with felony assault with a deadly weapon and possession of a firearm as an ex-felon. He is being held in Orange County Jail and has not yet retained counsel.

It remains unclear what the impact of the Rodriguez case and future “three strikes” cases will be. But defense attorneys were predicting appeals and challenges to the law.

“I think people who have committed three violent crimes have probably forfeited their right to live in society,” Giannini said. “But you have a situation here where someone who maybe did some stupid things as a youth, but has led a crime-free life for 20 years, could suddenly face life in prison for writing a bad check,” he said.