Reasons for Sentencing Choice Archives

Categories: Reasons for Sentencing Choice, Sentencing

Summary

Where trial court stated reasons for dismissing one of two strikes on the record, remand was not required for the court to provide written reasons in the minutes in light of subsequent amendment to Penal Code section 1385. Jones was…

View Full Summary

Name: People v. Shenouda

Case #: E061954

Opinion Date: 09/11/2015

Categories: Abuse of Discretion, Base Term Selection, Probation, Probation / Parole / PRCS, Reasons for Sentencing Choice, Sentencing

Summary

Defendant's multiple uncharged sexual battery offenses supported the court's denial of probation and imposition of six-year midterm sentence for lewd acts upon a child. A jury convicted Shenouda of committing a lewd act upon a 13-year-old girl, Brianna, for grabbing…

View Full Summary

Name: People v. Fuentes

Case #: G048563

Opinion Date: 04/20/2014

Categories: Enhancements, Reasons for Sentencing Choice, Sentencing

Summary

Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (g) does not eliminate the trial court's power to dismiss a section 186.22, subdivision (b) enhancement under Penal Code section 1385, subdivision (a). Fuentes pled guilty to two criminal offenses. Over the prosecution's objection, the…

View Full Summary

Name: People v. Bonnetta

Case #: S159133

Opinion Date: 04/27/2009

Categories: Pronouncement, Reasons for Sentencing Choice, Sentencing

Summary

The requirement in Penal Code section 1385 that reasons for a dismissal be set forth in the minute order is mandatory. As part of a plea agreement, the trial court reached the agreed-upon sentence by striking most of the drug…

View Full Summary

Name: People v. Quintanilla

Case #: B203825

Opinion Date: 01/22/2009

Categories: Consecutive Offenses, Reasons for Sentencing Choice, Sentencing

Summary

Under Penal Code section 667.6, subdivision(c), which authorizes imposition of a full consecutive sentence for specified sexual assaults, the court must identify criteria justifying the harsher sentence. Appellant was convicted of rape and forcible lewd and lascivious behavior on a…

View Full Summary

Name: People v. Medrano

Case #: C056068

Opinion Date: 04/18/2008

Categories: Civil Commitments, Constitutional Rights, CRC, Reasons for Sentencing Choice, Sentencing

Summary

When a person is initially committed to the California Rehabilitation Center, the sentence imposed is, for practical purposes, only an interim sentence. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement in two cases, appellant was sentenced to five years in prison, with…

View Full Summary

Name: People v. Abercrombie

Case #: C051865

Opinion Date: 03/24/2008

Categories: Reasons for Sentencing Choice, Sentencing, Three Strike Priors

Summary

Because parole status is a recidivism factor arising from a prior conviction, a defendant has no Sixth Amendment right to determination of parole status when it is used to enhance a sentence. Appellant was convicted of several counts of molestation…

View Full Summary

Name: People v. McFearson

Case #: F051882

Opinion Date: 01/07/2008

Categories: Enhancements, Reasons for Sentencing Choice, Sentencing

Summary

The trial court erred when it used a fact that resulted in an enhanced sentence to also impose an aggravated term. The trial court used appellant's three prior convictions to impose an aggravated sentence, and used the same convictions to…

View Full Summary

Name: People v. Jeffery

Case #: B187352

Opinion Date: 08/22/2006

Categories: Civil Commitments, CRC, Reasons for Sentencing Choice, Sentencing

Summary

Appellant pleaded no contest to several drug offenses and the trial court agreed to sentence her to a prison term of five years, and refer her for a psychological evaluation pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 3051, to determine…

View Full Summary

Name: People v. Benitez

Case #: C044648

Opinion Date: 03/29/2005

Categories: Areas Constitutional Law, Due Process, Probation, Probation / Parole / PRCS, Reasons for Sentencing Choice, Sentencing

Summary

Blakely v. Washington (2004) 159 L.Ed.2d 403 does not require a jury to determine the facts upon which a determination of probation eligibility is predicated. A denial of probation is not punishment, and a grant of probation results in a…

View Full Summary

Page 1
Page 2
Next