Skip to content
Name: People v. Segura
Case #: B189791
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 10/26/2006
Subsequent History: Review granted 2/14/07: S148536

Segura entered into a plea bargain where he pleaded no contest to one count of domestic violence, his prior strike was dismissed, and the trial court granted him probation on the condition that he serve 365 days in the county jail. The plea form specified that the offense would not be a strike in the future. Segura was advised of the possible immigration consequences of his plea. A few months later, he filed a motion to reduce the jail term because the Department of Homeland Security (formerly the INS) had commenced deportation proceedings because he had been…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. George
Case #: D042980
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 09/15/2004
Subsequent History: rev. gr. 12/15/04: S128582

Blakely v. Washington precludes a trial court's determination of facts not found by the jury or admitted by the defendant (other than those arising out of a prior conviction) as a basis for imposing an upper term sentence. Because the maximum penalty the court can impose without making additional factual findings is the mid term, Blakely applies. Here, the trial court relied on five aggravating factors. The trial court was entitled to rely only on the fact that George was on probation at the time of the charged offense as a basis for the imposition of the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Kirby
Case #: H025009
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 12/08/2003
Subsequent History: None

Appellant was convicted of conspiracy to pimp, in violation of Penal Code section 182 and 266h, and conspiracy to pander, in violation of sections 182 and 266i. The trial court followed the probation department's recommendation that probation be granted. The prosecution sought a writ of mandate requiring the trial court to deny probation and impose a state prison term, arguing that appellant was ineligible for probation under section 182, subdivision (a), and 1203.065. The appellate court here disagreed and denied the writ petition. The prosecution's argument is "not supported by a proper construction of the relevant…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Burbine
Case #: A096825
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 03/12/2003
Subsequent History: Rev. denied 6/11/03

Appellant’s case was remanded for resentencing in an earlier appeal because one of the counts of conviction was invalid based on an erroneous jury instruction. At resentencing, the judge listed the materials he had reviewed in preparation for the hearing, and did not mention the letters submitted in mitigation. Appellant’s counsel did not mention them either. The judge resentenced appellant to the same term originally imposed, but reached the result by a different route. (An upper term on another count in lieu of a midterm previously imposed.) On appeal, he argued that he should not…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Strohman
Case #: B134371
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 10/23/2000
Subsequent History: Petition for review den. 1/30/01

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying probation because the trial court's finding that appellant had engaged in daily "moral turpitude" while running the chop shop was a reasonable inference from the information available at…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Brown
Case #: B134542
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 09/25/2000
Subsequent History: Rev. den. 1/10/01

The court affirmed a sentence consisting of a lower term of 18 months for attempted voluntary manslaughter and the upper term of 10 years on the enhancement for use of a firearm. The victim, a married police officer, had a three year extramarital affair with the defendant, also a police officer. The victim came to the defendant's house and told her he wanted to terminate the relationship. The defendant shot him four times with a .22 caliber pistol, twice in the chest, once in the abdomen, and once in the leg. The court imposed the lower…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Grayson
Case #: C030812
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 08/29/2000
Subsequent History: Review denied 12/13/00

While the trial court may have erred in failing to exclude, under Evidence Code section 352, a letter found among the effects of one of the defendants, neither defendant suffered any prejudice from its admission. The inference that one of the defendants wrote the letter was not inescapable, and in any event the letter suggested nothing that was not already in evidence. In sentencing appellant for both kidnaping and pandering, the trial court violated Penal Code section 654, subdivision (a). The sentence for pandering should have been stayed, and the Court of Appeal so modified the judgment.…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Steele
Case #: B134069
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 08/22/2000
Subsequent History: Review denied 12/13/00

The trial court erred when it refused to allow appellant to cross-examine victim-witness Williams on her prior misdemeanor conviction for providing false information to a police officer during an arrest for prostitution. While appellant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation and cross-examination was violated, it was not prejudicial per Davis v. Alaska (1974) 415 U.S. 308. Here Williams was impeached with her prior conviction for voluntary manslaughter. Furthermore, she admitted a 20 year career as a prostitute. The fact that during that lengthy prostitution career Williams had provided false information to a police officer probably "surprised no…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Downey
Case #: B136294
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 08/02/2000
Subsequent History: Review denied 11/21/00

Remand was required where the court erroneously believed that it had to sentence appellant on his conviction for felony possession of cocaine consecutive to his misdemeanor conviction. Because the record clearly demonstrates that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion because of its erroneous interpretation of the law, remand was required. Furthermore, because the trial court never indicated whether the misdemeanor sentences were to be served concurrently or consecutively to each other, they must be deemed concurrent under Penal Code section 669. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to order a…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Coelho
Case #: H020689
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 06/05/2001
Subsequent History: Rev. den. 9/19/01

In a Three Strikes case where the defendant was charged with multiple counts of lewd and lascivious acts with a minor under 14, the jury found the defendant guilty of ten counts and found his prior "strikes" to be true. The trial court found that consecutive sentences were mandatory and imposed ten 25-years-to-life terms. Following his first appeal, the court remanded for resentencing because the trial court had misunderstood the scope of its discretion to sentence concurrently, and to give the trial court an opportunity to make a record to permit a reviewing court to determine the factual…

View Full Summary