legal newsarticles
jobs
projectsbriefs
 
Home Link Directory Forum Gallery Cases Law BlogsOpportunities
 
P. v. Lee
P. v. Lee
02/16/06

P. v. Lee


Filed 2/14/06 P. v. Lee CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED




California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.






IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA




THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT




(Siskiyou)


----








THE PEOPLE,


Plaintiff and Respondent,


v.


LAROLD JAMES LEE,


Defendant and Appellant.



C046972



(Super. Ct. Nos.


03-439, 03-1999)





In case No. 03-1999, a jury convicted defendant Larold James Lee of mayhem (Pen. Code, § 203),[1] corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant (§ 273.5, subd. (a)), and assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) and found true two allegations that he inflicted great bodily injury under circumstances involving domestic violence (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)). The trial court found that defendant had suffered three prior convictions, alleged as both serious felonies (§ 667, subd. (a)) and strikes (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). He was sentenced to an aggregate prison sentence of 41 years 8 months to life that included a consecutive term of one year eight months for case No. 03-439, in which he pleaded guilty to assault with a deadly weapon by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) and criminal threats (§ 422).


On appeal, defendant raises three claims of error relating to case No. 03-1999: (1) insufficient evidence supported the jury's true finding on the great bodily injury enhancements; (2) the court's selection of the upper term for the great bodily injury enhancements violates the principle set forth in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 [147 L.Ed.2d 435] (Apprendi) and Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [159 L.Ed.2d 403] (Blakely); and (3) the court's admission of other instances of spousal abuse was prejudicial error. We shall affirm the judgment.


Facts and Procedural History[2]


A. The Prosecution's Case


Defendant and K.M. married in March 1998. Some time in 2003, defendant came home drunk after visiting the home of Tina Powell and her boyfriend, Karri Fugett. Defendant told K.M. he â€

Details Discussion (0) Print Rate Report


0/5 based on 0 votes. The median rating is 0.

Views: 0 views. Averaging 0 views per day.

Previous Article | Next Article

    Home | Contacts | Submit New Article | Site Leaders | Search
    © 2005 Fearnotlaw.com