Skip to content
Name: People v. McClellan
Case #: B144957
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 01/18/2002
Subsequent History: Rev. denied 3/27/02. Reporter of Decisions directed not to publish.
Summary

The People charged to a robbery with use of a firearm under 2 enhancements: Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (b) and Penal Code section 12022.5, subdivision (a)(1). Appellant pled to both enhancements. Pursuant to a plea bargain specifying a lid of 12 years, the court found the 10-year enhancement under Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (b) would be cruel and unusual punishment and imposed the low-term of 3 years under section 12022.5, subdivision (a)(1). The People appealed. The appellate court held the People were estopped from challenging the sentence, as the bargain called for anything from probation to 12 years, which would have included a firearm enhancement under section 12022.5, subdivision (a)(1). The court alternatively held it would have been cruel and unusual to impose a 12-year term on that particular offender, who was an 18-year-old immature offender with no criminal record, was not criminally oriented, and who had good prospects. Appellant entered a guilty plea to robbery and admitted the personal use of a firearm under Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (b). At sentencing, the trial court found that the imposition of a ten year enhancement was cruel and unusual punishment, and instead imposed a three year term under section 12022.5, subdivision (a)(1). The prosecutor appealed. Here, the appellate court affirmed the order of the trial court. The trial court’s inherent sentencing powers include modifying a sentence which it deems cruel and unusual. Further, there was a guilty plea here entered in accordance with a plea bargain, to which the prosecution did not object below.