legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Huerta
Defendant Carolyn Huerta appeals from a judgment of criminal conviction, contending that (1) sentence on two of the three charges against her should have been stayed under Penal Code section 654, subdivision (a) (§ 654(a)); (2) she is entitled to credit for presentence confinement at the rate prescribed by the October 2011 amendments to Penal Code section 4019; and (3) one of the fines against her should be stricken as duplicative of a fine previously imposed. Respondent concedes the first point as to one charge, but not the other. Defendant in turn concedes that her second claim of error is foreclosed by the California Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Brown (2012) 54 Cal.4th 314. As to the remaining points of contention, we conclude that the sentence on the remaining charge should also have been stayed under section 654(a), and that the judgment must be corrected in three respects with respect to the fines imposed. We will direct appropriate modifications of the judgment and affirm the judgment as modified.

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2026 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2026 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale