legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Simpson CA2/8

mk's Membership Status

Registration Date: May 18, 2017
Usergroup: Administrator
Listings Submitted: 0 listings
Total Comments: 0 (0 per day)
Last seen: 05/23/18 - 13:04:09

Biographical Information

Contact Information

Submission History

Most recent listings:
P. v. Mendieta CA4/1
Asselin-Normand v. America Best Value Inn CA3
In re C.B. CA3
P. v. Bamford CA3
P. v. Jones CA3

Find all listings submitted by mk
P. v. Simpson CA2/8
By
03/29/19

Defendant Eddie S. Simpson appeals following his jury conviction of attempted robbery of the first degree (Pen. Code, §§ 211 & 664).[1] Defendant admitted a prior residential burglary conviction. The court sentenced defendant to nine years in prison, a term that included a then-mandatory five-year enhancement for the prior serious felony conviction. (§ 667, former subd. (a)(1); § 1385, former subd. (b).)

On appeal, defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to show specific intent to commit robbery. He also contends the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury, sua sponte, on the lesser included offense of attempted theft. And, in supplemental briefing, defendant contends legislation that went into effect on January 1, 2019, ending the statutory prohibition on a trial court’s ability to strike a prior serious felony enhancement, applies and requires a remand for a new sentencing hearing.


[1] Further statutory references are to the Penal Code.





Description Defendant Eddie S. Simpson appeals following his jury conviction of attempted robbery of the first degree (Pen. Code, §§ 211 & 664). Defendant admitted a prior residential burglary conviction. The court sentenced defendant to nine years in prison, a term that included a then-mandatory five-year enhancement for the prior serious felony conviction. (§ 667, former subd. (a)(1); § 1385, former subd. (b).)
On appeal, defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to show specific intent to commit robbery. He also contends the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury, sua sponte, on the lesser included offense of attempted theft. And, in supplemental briefing, defendant contends legislation that went into effect on January 1, 2019, ending the statutory prohibition on a trial court’s ability to strike a prior serious felony enhancement, applies and requires a remand for a new sentencing hearing.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.
Views 6 views. Averaging 0 views per day.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2019 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2019 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale