Turning back time after law strikes 3

Fred RODRIGUEZ, like most fathers, wants the best for his son. And even though the boy he watched grow to a troubled manhood is 38, Fred is still spending time and money on his behalf. They were, and are, close, and the closeness fuels the father’s passion. But California’s three-strikes law isn’t easy to overcome.

The son, Alex Rodriguez, is serving 25 years to life in state prison. The father admits, with some reluctance, that “he isn’t clean. He’s been there.” Being there included involvement in a murder as a juvenile and, later, an armed robbery. He served time for both. But it’s the current prison term the father is fighting and, in effect, a law that allows for little flexibility.

The story begins on the afternoon of Feb. 17, 2002, on a quiet street in an unincorporated area of East L.A. Sheriff’s deputies responded to a domestic disturbance between Rodriguez and his girlfriend at the time. They were having an argument and she wanted him out of the house. No violence was involved.

While there, deputies asked Rodriguez if there were any weapons in the house. He answered yes, pointed out a rifle and a shotgun mounted on the wall, and a shotgun in another room, all unloaded. He described them as antiques owned by his half-brother, a gun collector. Under questioning by the deputies, he admitted that he was an ex-con and was arrested on the basis of being a felon in possession of firearms.

Because he was involved in two violent crimes, Rodriguez was tried under the three-strikes law, which was enacted in 1994 by the state Legislature. Later that same year, voters approved Proposition 184, also a three-strikes law, and virtually the same as that enacted by the state. Both have been subjects of debate ever since.

Fred Rodriguez vows to fight the law and his son’s conviction until he’s released from prison. A 70-year-old hotel janitor, he has spent $35,000 so far in legal fees, and more is due. The first lawyer he hired to represent Alex provided an inadequate defense, the father says, a contention supported by the current attorney, Lawrence Young, who is appealing the case to the state Supreme Court.

Alex’s half-brother, Manuel, 26, a film studio lighting technician, confirms that the weapons were his, not Alex’s, and that Alex wasn’t living in the house at the time of his arrest, and hadn’t been living there for several weeks. This, and a question of illegal search and seizure, form the basis for the newest appeal.

There are all kinds of reasons why Alex Rodriguez probably shouldn’t have been tried under the three-strikes law. That section of the law that makes it a felony for an ex-con to be in possession of firearms was never intended to apply to a man being present in a house he wasn’t living in, where unloaded guns were mounted on a wall. If that were so, then God help the ex-con caught in a museum where antique rifles are displayed.

Fred Rodriguez first contacted me in September, asking for help in obtaining justice for his son. The 25-years-to-life sentence is mandatory under three-strikes, after the judge declined to disallow a prior felony conviction, even though Rodriguez was a minor at the time. Had he done so, the sentence would probably have been eight years.

The three-strikes law has been challenged many times, not only as cruel and unusual, but also unfair. USC law professor Erwin Chemerinsky last year wrote in a Times article that there are 344 third-strikers serving life sentences in California for shoplifting. A website belonging to an organization called Families to Amend California’s Three-Strikes lists 150 cases of men convicted under the law for crimes ranging from stealing two flashlight batteries to lying on a driver’s license application. Justice was never intended to be so rigid. In response, state prosecutors, including L.A. Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley, have halted prosecution of most nonviolent third-strikers.

There’s no question that those facing a third strike have to work to get there. Crimes have to be committed, some of them violent. Alex Rodriguez was involved in the death of one man and the threatening of another in an armed robbery. Guns were used in both cases. But that isn’t the point. He’s paid for those crimes. The question now is whether he should be spending his life in prison for being in a room with antique weapons that weren’t his in a house where he didn’t live. That deserves another hearing.

Fred Rodriguez vows never to stop fighting to free his son. He sees promise in Alex’s future, but both his son’s past and a law that can be as rigid as prison bars must be overcome first. “He was doing so well,” the elder Rodriguez says. “This just isn’t right.”

Whether or not that will make a difference is problematic. But it ought to be worth something on a moral scale, at least, that a father believes so much in his son’s redemption.

Al Martinez’s column appears Mondays and Fridays. He’s at al.martinez@latimes.com.