`3 STRIKES' RULING SPURS BIDS FOR NEW HEARINGS.

Byline: Janet Gilmore Daily News Staff Writer

Prisoners sentenced under California's ``three strikes, you're out'' law are wasting little time seeking new hearings in the wake of a state Supreme Court decision that gives judges more latitude in sentencing decisions.

They have petitioned the courts, written to their attorneys and sought legal advice wherever they can get it.

Lon Sarnoff of the Los Angeles County Public Defender's Office said last week he has received scores of inquiries from inmates inside and outside the county, all seeking some form of help.

``I anticipate that we will be receiving hundreds of letters each week,'' Sarnoff said. ``There is a great (inmate-to-inmate) communications network in the prisons.''

In a decision that sent shock waves through the criminal justice system, the state Supreme Court ruled June 20 that judges can ignore a prior conviction - or ``strike'' - to reduce a sentence in the interest of justice.

Additionally, the court ruled that defendants already sentenced under the 1994 law are entitled to new hearings.

In Los Angeles County, where roughly 40 percent of the state's ``three strikes'' cases are handled, judges and attorneys predicted the ruling could return as many as 8,000 cases to court and force extensive hearings.

Prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges so far have delayed taking action on the petitions because the Supreme Court has been asked to clarify resentencing procedures within the next couple of months.

The clarification request came from the San Diego County District Attorney's Office and the Los Angeles County Public Defender's Office.

The Supreme Court's decision in People vs. Romero is scheduled to become official Sept. 18. The court has until that date to offer any modifications or clarifications to its original ruling.

But some inmates are not waiting. In courtrooms across the county, judges have received petitions from inmates seeking rehearings.

Among them is Arno Sorio, a 73-year-old Folsom prisoner, convicted for possessing one-tenth of a gram of cocaine. He recently filed a petition for a new hearing and a court-appointed attorney.

Under the ``three strikes'' law, a person convicted of two felony offenses is sentenced to double the usual term. A third-strike conviction calls for a prison term of 25 years to life.

``The transcript of court proceedings indicates that a sentence of 16 months was proposed to the court,'' Sorio wrote about his second felony conviction. ``The judge indicated that defendant was receiving a 16-month sentence but given an enhancement . . . and (the judge's) hands were tied with no jurisdiction to deviate.''

Sorio's first strike was a residential burglary, committed when he was 49. If a judge grants a sentencing hearing and decides to ignore the burglary conviction, Sorio could be released for time already served.

Otherwise he must wait until May 1997.

Such petitions have landed in Superior Court Judge John Reid's courtroom. He says he usually finds a few when he sifts through his mail. The petitions also have made it to the desk of Sarnoff, division chief for the public defender's special services unit.

Sarnoff, who is tracking ``three strikes'' communications for the office, gets copies of the petitions along with a continuing stream of inmate letters - about 75 letters in the last 20 days.

Among them:

A second-strike inmate from Riverside County, serving a six-year prison term for drug possession, wrote seeking advice on which form to fill out for a rehearing. He enclosed a stamped envelope for Sarnoff's reply.

A Pomona inmate wanted to know: ``Don't they suppose to appoint me a lawyer? Can you (check) it for me please or can you talk to the judge about the strikes?''

``I don't believe my crimes are deserving of a life sentence,'' wrote one inmate who did not elaborate about his criminal history. ``That should be the decision of a judge.''

In one 10-page letter, which reminded Sarnoff of Victor Hugo and his famous work ``Les Miserables,'' a ``three strikes'' inmate wrote about crime, punishment and the social, economic and emotional effects of laws like the one that put him in prison for 25 years to life.

``I sit not idle,'' the grandfather wrote. ``I search for the message in logic of these (``three strikes'') sentences, for I and many others shall die in prison for an offense minor.''

Other inmates have written that they have seen the error of their ways and now want to be there for their families, their children.

``How much of it is manipulation? Who knows?'' Sarnoff commented.

Reading the letters may be primarily an intellectual exercise for him, Sarnoff said, but it is an emotional one for attorneys who will represent these defendants in court.

``For the trial lawyer, it's a gut-wrenching experience,'' Sarnoff said. ``It reopens old wounds for the lawyers. They are afraid that they will fail once again to protect the liberties of their client.''

Deputy Public Defender Arnold Lester, a trial attorney, said the Supreme Court is expected to bring case-by-case decisions, not wholesale sentence modifications.

Lester has received a few inquiries from a few of about 45 second- and third-strike prisoners who have been his clients. He was surprised that a note from one began: ``I don't know if you remember me.''

It was from Jerry Dewayne Williams, the 26-year-old defendant sentenced to 25 years to life in prison for the infamous theft of a slice a pizza. His was a case that touched off public debate about the application of the ``three strikes'' law.

Williams, like other defendants who inquire about the ``three strikes'' ruling, is watching and writing but essentially forced to wait.

``We send them letters,'' said Lester, ``and tell them to be patient.''