P. v. Sandefur
Maunice Sandefur and Michael J. Crummer were jointly tried and convicted by a jury of felony assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)[1]) and second degree robbery ( 211; 212.5, subd. (c)). The jury also found true allegations that appellants personally inflicted great bodily injury and personally used a deadly weapon ( 12022.7, subd. (a); 12022, subd. (b)(1)). A second jury found true numerous prior conviction allegations with respect to each appellant. Thereafter, the trial court sentenced Sandefur to a total term of 13 years in prison and Crummer received a Three Strikes sentence of 37 years to life. Sandefur raises a single issue on appeal. She contends the trial court erred by permitting the prosecutor to file an amended information alleging additional prior prison term allegations against her after the jury that had convicted her was discharged. Approaching this issue from a different direction, Crummer contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by consenting to the filing of the amended information after the jury that convicted appellants had been discharged. We agree with Sandefur and modify her sentence to correct the courts error. However, we find that Crummer has failed to substantiate his ineffective assistance claim on appeal.
On appeal, Crummer also contends the judgment against him must be reversed because of an evidentiary error relating to Sandefurs trial testimony and that the trial court made a sentencing error. In a separately filed in pro per petition for writ of habeas, corpus, which we consider along with this appeal, Crummer seeks reversal of the judgment on a variety of grounds. Aside from the sentencing error, which the People concede we must correct, Court reject Crummers contentions, affirm the judgment and deny the petition.
Comments on P. v. Sandefur