P. v. Hill
A jury found defendant Senica Rayshawn Hill guilty of two counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211)[1] and one count of making terrorist threats ( 422), and found he personally used a firearm during the commission of both robberies ( 12022.53, subd. (b)). The same jury found defendant Antonio Young guilty of two counts of second degree robbery ( 211), also finding he was armed with a firearm during the commission of those offenses ( 12022, subd. (a)(1)). The court found Young had a prior strike conviction. ( 667, subd. (b)-(i).) Hill was sentenced to an aggregate term of 20 years in state prison and Young to an aggregate term of 13 years four months in state prison. On appeal, defendant Hill contends: (1) the trial courts failure to conduct a section 1368 competency hearing was prejudicial error; (2) the reasonable doubt instructions were erroneous; (3) imposition of the upper term violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights; and (4) the minute order and the abstract of judgment are not consistent with the courts oral pronouncement of judgment. Young also appeals, contending: (1) his conviction for the robbery of Ashok Chandra was not supported by substantial evidence, and (2) imposition of the upper term violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Each defendant joins in the claims raised by the other. As to defendant Hill, Court direct that the abstract of judgment be corrected, remand for further hearing on the issue of payment of victim restitution, as well as his ability to pay authorized fees, and otherwise affirm the judgment. As to defendant Young, Court correct a clerical error in the abstract of judgment and affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Hill