$195 Crime Gets Forger 2 Life Terms

A Los Angeles man who defended himself against a “three strikes” prosecution by attacking the district attorney’s enforcement of the law as discriminatory has been sentenced to two consecutive life sentences for a $195 forgery last year.

The sentence for Louis Francis, 36, a three-time convicted robber, was recommended by the district attorney’s office and imposed Wednesday by Superior Court Judge Jack B. Tso. Both said the state’s “three strikes” law left no option other than consecutive sentences of at least 25 years to life for Francis, who represented himself at the trial.

Critics of the law, however, not only challenged that assertion but also said the prosecution of Francis proves that the 2-year-old law is resulting in cruel and excessive sentences for nonviolent crimes.

“It’s crazy. It’s barbarian,” said Geri Silva of Mothers Reclaiming Our Children, an organization in South-Central Los Angeles that has monitored the Francis case and challenges criminal justice policies that it says discriminate on the basis of race and economic status.

Charles Bereal, president of the Pasadena chapter of the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People, said: “Let’s be fair. The guy did something wrong, but the sentence doesn’t go along with the crime. You’ve got people committing murders and they are getting less time than this. I mean, it is just ridiculous.”

Francis, who plans to appeal the sentences, said he was not surprised by their severity.

“Everything that I said came to pass,” Francis said by phone from the Men’s County Jail, where he has been in custody since his arrest a year ago. “There was no fairness.”

Francis, of Los Angeles, was arrested last May for stealing a checkbook from an Arcadia businessman and then forging a check. In all, the district attorney’s office charged Francis with four separate felonies arising from that theft, including commercial burglary. All four were crimes that could be prosecuted as felonies or misdemeanors.

In opting for felony prosecution, the district attorney’s office decided that Francis should stand trial under the “three strikes” law because his background included three convictions--the most recent in 1985--for second-degree robbery, as well as a 1990 conviction for cocaine possession.

During an April jury trial, Francis admitted that he stole the checkbook and forged a check, saying he needed the money to find temporary shelter because his life was in danger.

But acting as his own attorney, Francis built the core of his unsuccessful defense around two unusual arguments.

First, Francis, who is black, charged that California’s “three strikes” law has been inequitably applied to minorities like him, citing studies and state Department of Corrections statistics showing that the majority of those imprisoned under the law are African American and Latino.

And in Los Angeles County, Francis said, the unfairness of the law’s application has further been shown by the district attorney’s decision last year to reduce “three strikes” charges against the grandson of a contributor to Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti’s campaign.

After filing more than 100 motions in his defense, Francis was convicted by a jury on three of four counts brought by the district attorney.

The verdict led to Wednesday’s sentencing, where prosecutor Jeffrey Boxer argued--and Judge Tso agreed--that Francis had to receive two sentences because he had been found guilty of two separate felonies: the intent to steal a wallet and later forging a check.

Although a call to Tso’s court to discuss the sentence was not returned, prosecutor Boxer said Friday that the “three strikes” law does not allow the discretion offered in other criminal cases when it comes to sentencing. “If they are not ‘strike’ cases, the court has the option to stay [sentences],” Boxer said. “[But] under ‘three strikes,’ the law says consecutive sentences must be imposed” for each criminal act.

“It’s unfortunate that is the way it has to be interpreted. I also feel the law is very severe,” Boxer said. “But it is my duty as a deputy district attorney to uphold the law.”

Moreover, the prosecutor said, the facts in the case warranted a “three strikes” prosecution. “You cannot overlook the sequence of events in this case. . . . Mr. Francis has a terrible history and that is what this law addresses.”

But critics of the law sharply disagreed.

Alex Ricciardulli, a deputy public defender who has handled numerous “three strike” cases, acknowledged that the courts have limited the discretion of judges to not consider previous felony convictions as strikes. However, he said, the law gives them power to impose a single sentence if they determine that separate crimes arose, as the law puts it, “from the same set of operative facts” such as the types of crimes or the time in which they occurred.

“I think a good argument can be made that what this guy did arose from the same set of operative facts,” Ricciardulli said.

“But the most egregious thing here is that everyone believes they have no choice but to give this guy life in prison. And that’s ridiculous.