legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Canete
Appellant Ralph Nicholas Canete appeals from a jury verdict finding him guilty of robbery and access card theft in violation of Penal Code sections 211 and 484e, subdivision (d), respectively.[1] Appellant contends the trial court erred in finding that section 667, subdivision (c)(6) mandated consecutive sentencing for the felony convictions because the two acts were committed on the same occasion and arose from the same set of operative facts. We vacated submission and requested supplemental letter briefing on whether sentencing for the charge under section 484e, subdivision (d), was precluded by section 654, regardless of whether it is imposed concurrently or consecutively. We conclude sentencing on both charges is precluded by section 654. We reverse as to sentencing and otherwise affirm.

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
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale