P. v. Lua Lua
On September 27, 2006, in Tulare County Superior Court case No. VCF148503 (case 503), a jury convicted appellant Arturo Lua Lua of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11377; count 1) and possession of paraphernalia used for smoking a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11364; count 2), and found true an allegation that appellant had suffered a strike.[1] On September 28, 2006, in Tulare County Superior Court case No. VCF154557 (case 557), a jury convicted appellant of possession of a firearm by a person previously convicted of a felony ( 12021, subd. (a)(1); count 1) and possession of ammunitionby a person previously convicted of a felony ( 12316, subd. (b)(1); count 2), and found true allegations that appellant committed each offense while released on bail ( 12022.1) and that he had suffered a strike. On appeal, appellant contends the court erroneously (1) failed to stay execution of sentence on count 2 in case 557 pursuant to section 654; (2) imposed more than one on-bail enhancement in case 557; (3) calculated appellants presentence credits in case 557; and (4) failed to stay the section 1202.45 fine in case 503. The People counter that appellants appeal should be dismissed as untimely and that the court did not violate section 654. The People concede appellants remaining contentions. We will modify the judgment to correct errors regarding presentence credit in case 557, the parole revocation fine in case 503 and the on bail enhancement in case 557, and affirm the judgment as modified.
Comments on P. v. Lua Lua