P. v. Griffin
A jury convicted defendant of the lesser, necessarily included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter on count 1 (count 1Pen. Code, 664, 192, subd. (a)),[1]assault with a semiautomatic handgun (count 2 245, subd. (b)), and being a convicted felon in proscribed possession of a firearm (count 3 12021, subd. (a)(1)). The jury additionally found true allegations that defendant had personally used a firearm ( 12022.5, subd. (a), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)) in his commission of the count 1 offense and had personally inflicted great bodily injury resulting in the infliction of paralysis of a permanent nature upon the victim in his commission of the counts 1 and 2 offenses ( 12022.7, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 15 years 8 months imprisonment, consisting of the following: the midterm of six years on count 2 as the principal term; a consecutive four years on the personal use enhancement; a consecutive five years on the great bodily injury enhancement; one-third the midterm of three years on count 1, stayed pursuant to section 654; the midterm of four years for the personal use enhancement as to count 1, stayed pursuant to section 654; five years for the great bodily injury enhancement as to count 1, stayed pursuant to section 654; and one-third the midterm of 24 months, consecutive, on the count 3 offense.
On appeal, defendant contends that there is insufficient evidence to support the jurys finding that the victim sustained paralysis of a permanent nature; that the courts pronouncement of sentence upon the count 1 offense and enhancements attached thereto was proscribed by section 654s bar against multiple punishment; that the matter must be remanded for resentencing for the courts failure to state its reasons for imposing a consecutive sentence on the count 3 offense; and that defendant was deprived of his constitutional right to a jury finding on the factors used to support imposition of a consecutive term of imprisonment on the count 3 offense. Court find defendants arguments unavailing and, therefore, affirm the judgment in full.
Comments on P. v. Griffin