P. v. Daniels
Convicted of a number of counts of robbery and burglary, defendants Clarence and Tyron Daniels appeal,[1]arguing: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support their convictions of robbing J. C. (count 2); and (2) the trial court erred in imposing the upper term for robbery (count 1) based on facts not found by a jury or admitted by them. Clarence also argues that his conviction for possession of stolen property (count 5) must be reversed because he was convicted of stealing the same property and that his abstract of judgment must be amended to reflect a concurrent sentence on one of his burglary convictions (count 4). Agreeing with Clarences latter two arguments, we will reverse his conviction for possession of stolen property (count 5) and direct the trial court to correct the abstracts of judgment for both defendants to reflect concurrent sentences on count 4. Finding no merit in defendants remaining arguments, Court will affirm the judgments in all other respects.
Comments on P. v. Daniels