legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Perez CA4/1
This is the second appeal we have considered in this case. The current appeal is from the resentencing which occurred when we remanded the case to the superior court. Perez claims, and the People agree that the trial court erred by imposing a second strike sentence on remand as there was no valid strike prior remaining at the time of resentencing. The parties also agree the court imposed an unauthorized sentence by imposing a 10-year enhancement under Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b), where the statute only permits the court to impose a five-year enhancement. Our review of the record indicates the parties are correct about the claimed sentencing errors. We will vacate the sentence and remand the case to the trial court with directions to resentence without the alleged strike prior and to impose no greater term than five years for the section 186.22, subdivision (b) enhancement.

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