Spiller (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1014, 1024.) A lesser known amendment, indeed one that was never discussed in the Official Voter Information Guide, (Official Voter Information Guide, Gen. 1 have a positive fiscal impact by reducing the prison population of prisoners who do not pose a threat to public safety. Conley (2016) 63 Cal.4th 646, 652-653.) This amendment was generally seen as an ameliorative change meant to bring proportionality in sentencing and * Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1105 and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of parts II through IV. Proposition 36 amended the three strikes law in a variety of ways, the most notable of which was to require a third strike defendant’s current felony conviction be a serious or violent felony before he or she could be sentenced to 25 years to life for that conviction. Donohue, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, James P. ROBERT MICHAEL GANGL, Defendant and Appellant. Those serious or violent felonies must then be sentenced consecutively to the sentences for nonserious and nonviolent convictions.įiled 11/14/19 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) -THE PEOPLE, C086719 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. The Court of Appeal concluded the trial court had the discretion to sentence a serious or violent felony offender concurrently to his or her current serious or violent felony convictions when those felonies were committed on the same occasion and arise out of the same set of operative facts. In the published portion of its opinion, the Court of Appeal had to decide what an amendment to Proposition 36 meant, and whether it changed the long-standing rule that trial courts could use discretion to sentence a prior serious or violent felony offender concurrently to multiple current convictions or whether the trial court was mandated to sentence that offender consecutively to all of his current convictions. Defendant raised several alleged sentencing errors on appeal. The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 18 years in state prison. Defendant Robert Michael Gangl was convicted of multiple offenses after he stole a car and then stole the arresting officer’s patrol vehicle, led officers on a high-speed chase, and eventually robbed a man in his own home as he tried to elude capture.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |