P. v. Loredo
Appellant, Joe Loredo, and four codefendants were charged in an information filed on February 7, 2006 with a series of counts and enhancements related to the kidnapping, assault, robbery, mayhem, and further kidnapping of Jason H. Appellant was charged as follows: count one, conspiracy to kidnap for robbery (Pen. Code, 182, subd. (a)(1) and 209, subd. (b)(1))[1]; count two, conspiracy to kidnap ( 182, subd. (a)(1) & 207, subd. (a)); count three, kidnapping for robbery ( 209, subd. (b)(1)); count four, kidnapping ( 207, subd. (a)); count five, mayhem ( 203); count 6, second degree robbery ( 211); count seven, assault with a firearm ( 245, subd. (a)(2)); count eight, assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury ( 245, subd. (a)(1)), count nine, false imprisonment by violence ( 236); count ten, making criminal threats ( 422); and count eleven, possession of a firearm by a felon ( 12021, subd. (a)(1)). Count seven alleged that appellant personally used a firearm ( 12022.5, subd. (a)). Counts one through ten alleged appellant had served three prior prison terms ( 667.5, subd. (b)) and used a firearm during the commission of the offenses ( 12022.53, subd. (b)).
Appellant contends the trial court erred in failing to advise him of the parole consequences of his plea, not appointing substitute counsel to investigate a motion to withdraw his plea, imposing an unauthorized sentence because conspiracy is not an enumerated trigger offense under section 12022.53, subdivision (a), and imposing a sentence in violation of Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. [127 S.Ct. 856] (Cunningham). The judgment is affirmed.
Comments on P. v. Loredo