P. v. Valenzuela
Ernest Matthew Valenzuela (defendant) argues: that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial courts finding that one of his prior convictions was a strike; that the court committed prejudicial error by admitting evidence of the contents of a bag found in his truck; and that the sentence on one of his current convictions must be stayed pursuant to the provisions of Penal Code section 654. Court are persuaded by none of defendants arguments and will affirm.
Comments on P. v. Valenzuela