Skip to content
Name: People v. Riggs
Case #: C029575
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 12/06/2000
Subsequent History: Opinion on Rehearing of 2/2/01 at: 86 Cal. App. 4th 1126

Here, appellant was convicted of receiving stolen property and he admitted having suffered a "strike" prior for a 1995 robbery conviction. Because appellant had been previously sentenced in El Dorado County, the Placer County Superior Court, pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.1, resentenced appellant on the El Dorado County offense when it imposed sentence for the Placer County offense. The Placer court imposed the middle term of two years, doubled, for the Placer offense and the strike. The Placer Court then imposed 1/3 of the middle term, or eight months consecutive for the El Dorado conviction, and doubled…

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. Jeffries
Case #: C028377
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 08/16/2000
Subsequent History: Review denied 11/29/00

The trial court properly instructed the jury with CALJIC 2.50.01 where the prosecution introduced evidence of prior sexual offenses. Relying on People v. Falsetta (1999) 21 Cal.4th 903, the court rejected appellant's claim that CALJIC 2.50.01 permits, in violation of the due process clause, the introduction of evidence of other sexual offenses where there is no rational connection between the circumstances of the other offenses and the instant offenses. The record here affirmatively demonstrates that the trial court misunderstood the scope of its sentencing discretion because it thought that the "three strikes" law, and in particular Penal Code…

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. Bohannon
Case #: B115308
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 07/28/2000
Subsequent History: Review denied 11/21/00

Bohannon and Hagemann were convicted of multiple sex offenses involving rape by use of drugs. On appeal Hagemann contended that the court erred by failing to release the addresses and phone numbers of two of the victims. Instead, court had ordered the district attorney to make the witnesses available for interviews, and the defense subsequently interviewed the two witnesses. The appellate court found no error. Although failure to disclose the address of a victim was a statutory violation, discovery violations are measured by a posttrial standard. Here, appellant could not establish that the information not…

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
Name: People v. Alvarado
Case #: H020636
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 02/16/2001
Subsequent History: Rev. den. 5/23/01

The failure to instruct the jury on the meaning of the phrase "during the commission of a burglary" included in Penal Code section 667.61, the "one strike" law, was not error because it has no technical legal meaning. Jurors would naturally understand the phrase to include at least the time that a burglar remains inside the structure after entry. Defense counsel's failure to object to the trial court's failure to state reasons justifying the imposition of consecutive terms does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel where the objectives of the two offenses were clearly different and where the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. McPherson
Case #: B135960
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 01/24/2001
Subsequent History: Review denied 4/25/01

Where appellant was convicted of two counts of rape for actively raping the victim himself, and for aiding and abetting the rape of the victim by another man, the Court of Appeal held that this was sufficient to meet the "separate occasion" requirement of Penal Code section 667.6, subdivision (d), which permits the imposition of full term consecutive sentences. [In dicta, the court also found that the change of position or the lapse of time between the two assaults here would also have been sufficient to meet the "separate occasion" requirement.] Citing its agreement with People v. Farr (1997) 54…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Jenkins
Case #: B139842
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 01/29/2001
Subsequent History: Review denied 4/25/01

Appellant was properly sentenced under the Three Strikes law to two consecutive life-term sentences for one count of attempted first degree murder and one count of assault with a deadly weapon where the offenses were not committed on the same occasion and based on the same set of operative facts. Appellant contended that under People v. Lawrence (2000) 24 Cal.4th 219, the trial court did not have to sentence him to mandatory consecutive sentences. However, appellant assaulted one victim at the top of the stairs while he was trying to enter a bedroom where the second victim, another…

View Full Summary