Judges did not have the discretion to tailor sentences to more appropriately fit a crime. In 1996 this issue led to an appeal to the California Supreme Court in People v. Supreme Court (Romero). The question at hand was whether judges had the power to ignore strikes that would have changed the outcome of the ruling in a Three Strikes case. The Supreme Court held that because judges already had the power to dismiss charges “in the furtherance of justice” and because the three strikes law did not specifically prohibit this power, judges had the power to strike. This ruling was the cornerstone on the path to correcting the errors in the three strikes law and the beginning of the end of the “tough on crime” approach of the 1990s. Defense lawyers may now write to Romero Motions to demonstrate why the cookie-cutter sentencing approach of the Three Strikes law should not be applied to their client. The goal was to demonstrate to the judge that this person did not fall within the spirit of the three strikes law and deserved a more lenient sentence. Perhaps this person's entire criminal history consisted of substance abuse allegations and he simply needed treatment for his addiction. Perhaps the defendant has no violent history and poses no threat to the community, thus not falling within the original intent of the Three Strikes Law. Giving judges the power to dismiss or ignore a