P. v. Om
On appeal, the People contend: (1) the three strikes law required the trial court to impose consecutive sentences, (2) the court was required to impose sentence on counts 1, 2, 9, and 11 before staying execution of sentence under ADDIN BA xc <@osdv> xl 20 s FEMURZ000051 l "section 654, and (3)" section 654, and (3) the court was required to impose mandatory fines and fees during its oral pronouncement of judgment. Defendant concedes the last two points.
In a cross-appeal, defendant contends (1) evidence of an uncharged act was admitted in error, and (2) the jury was not instructed on an element of forcibly dissuading a witness. We remand for further proceedings.
Comments on P. v. Om