legal newsarticles
jobs
projectsbriefs
 
Home Link Directory Forum Gallery Cases Law BlogsOpportunities
 
P. v. Wood
P. v. Wood
03/23/06


P. v. Wood


Filed 3/21/06 P. v. Wood CA2/3


Opinion following rehearing



NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS



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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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



SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT



DIVISION THREE










THE PEOPLE,


Plaintiff and Appellant.


v.


ROBERT JAMES WOOD,


Defendant and Respondent,



B177349


(Los Angeles County


Super. Ct. No. BA233533)



APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,


Mark V. Mooney, Judge. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with directions.


Sharon Fleming, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent.


Steve Cooley, District Attorney (Los Angeles) and Patrick D. Moran and Brent Riggs, Deputy District Attorneys, for Plaintiff and Appellant.


_________________________


The People appeal from the judgment entered against respondent Robert James Wood following his convictions by jury of two counts of possession of a destructive device (Pen. Code, § 12303), six counts of possession of a destructive device with intent to injure (Pen. Code, § 12303.3, counts 1 through 6), and count 7 - possession of a substance with intent to make a destructive device (Pen. Code, § 12312), with an admission that he suffered a prior felony conviction (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (d)) and a prior serious felony conviction (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a)). He was sentenced to prison for 16 years 4 months.


In this case, we hold the trial court erroneously failed to impose mandatory consecutive sentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 667, subdivision (c)(6), as to count 2, one of counts 3 through 6, and count 7. Consecutive sentencing was mandatory because the offenses at issue were 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