Skip to content
Name: People v. Solorzano
Case #: F049842
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 07/27/2007
Summary

A police officer’s awareness that appellant is a parolee is sufficient to inform the officer of his right to conduct a parole search of appellant regardless of the absence of proof that appellant had signed the parole condition, pursuant to Penal Code section 3067, agreeing to search without warrant. (People v. Middleton (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 732.)

CALCRIM jury instruction no. 376 (possession of recently stolen property as evidence of robbery), authorizing a permissive inference if the jury finds slight supporting evidence does not undermine the presumption of innocence or violate due process.

If a defendant successfully challenges his conviction on appeal and secures a new trial, upon subsequent conviction, he may not receive a harsher sentence unless the original sentence was not legally authorized. (People v. Hanson (2000) 23 Cal.4th 355; People v. Serrato (1973) 9 Cal.3d 753, overruled on other ground in People v. Fosselman (1983) 33 Cal.3d 572.) Following his first conviction, the court, on the misadvice of the probation officer and the prosecutor, failed to impose the penalties for three of the four serious felony convictions. Because imposition of the terms was the statutorily mandated, the sentence was unauthorized, and it was necessary to correct it on the subsequent sentence, thereby increasing the sentence over the initial one. (People v. Williams (2004) 34 Cal.4th 397; Pen. Code, sec. 1385.)