P. v. DiPaolo
For the second time, defendant and appellant Fred DiPaolo (defendant) appeals from his conviction of three counts of felony sex abuse.[1] Defendant contends that the trial court failed to comply with this court’s directive to exercise its discretion in determining whether to impose a concurrent or consecutive term as to count 2. He also contends that the consecutive term amounting to 30 years to life in prison violates the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. We conclude that the trial court exercised its discretion as directed and that defendant’s sentence was not cruel or unusual. We thus affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. DiPaolo