P. v. Caldera
Defendant Armando Caldera appeals from his conviction of three counts of special circumstance first degree murder, attempted premeditated murder, conspiracy to commit murder and unlawful taking of a motor vehicle.[1] He contends: (1) an incorrect jury instruction denied him a fair trial and due process; (2) it was prejudicial error to admit certain evidence; (3) imposition of a Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C) enhancement on each of the three murder convictions was error; and (4) the abstract of judgment does not correctly reflect the sentence imposed by the trial court.[2] We strike the section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C) enhancements on each of the three murder convictions and order the abstract of judgment modified to accurately reflect the sentence imposed by the trial court. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Caldera