Logan

People v. Logan

Good Law
190 Cal. App. 3d 599·1987 Cal. App. LEXIS 1526·235 Cal. Rptr. 547
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 23, 1987Crim. 14911California5,511 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Sims, J.

A jury convicted defendant DeWayne Logan of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)) 1 and found that in the commission of that offense he personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5) and inflicted *602 great bodily injury (§ 12022.7). The jury also convicted defendant of possession by an ex-felon of a firearm (§ 12021). The trial court found defendant a habitual criminal within the meaning of section 667.7 and sentenced him to life imprisonment with parole precluded for 20 years.

Defendant makes a series of challenges to his current convictions which we reject in an unpublished portion of this opinion. In this published portion, we consider defendant’s contention he was improperly adjudicated a habitual criminal within the meaning of section 667.7. For reasons which follow, we conclude this contention has merit.

Procedural Background and Facts Relevant to the Habitual Criminal Finding

As pertinent here, section 667.7 provides for increased punishment for defendants who have served two or more prior separate prison terms for certain offenses and who are then convicted of a felony in which they have inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7).

*603 Here, the…

Concurring Opinion

Evans, J.

I concur in the judgment and the reasoning in both the published and unpublished portions of the opinion.

*607 The proof or lack thereof offered by the People to establish the prior prison terms for crimes enumerated in Penal Code section 667.7, for habitual offender enhancements, compels my concurrence. The defendant was allowed to simply admit his prior prison sentence for robbery, “while armed,” and admitted no more as to that offense, nor did the People offer more with reference to the armed allegation. Had the People chosen to establish the circumstances of the presence of the firearm during the robbery, it may well have fallen into the category of circumstances described by the California Supreme Court in People v. Chambers (1972) 7 Cal.3d 666 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 776 , 498 P.2d 1024 ], and would have sufficed for purposes of the habitual offender statute. In Chambers , the court also stated, “Although the use of a firearm connotes something more than a bare potential for use, there need not be conduct which actually produces harm but only conduct which produces a fear of harm or force by means or display of a firearm in aiding the commission of one of the specified felonies.…

Opinion

[Opinion certified for partial publication. [*] ]

OPINION

SIMS, J.

A jury convicted defendant DeWayne Logan of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)) [1] and found that in the commission of that offense he personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5) and inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7). The jury also convicted defendant of possession by an ex-felon of a firearm (§ 12021). The trial court found defendant a habitual criminal within the meaning of section 667.7 and sentenced him to life imprisonment with parole precluded for 20 years.

Defendant makes a series of challenges to his current convictions which we reject in an unpublished portion of this opinion. In this published portion, we consider defendant's contention he was improperly adjudicated a habitual criminal within the meaning of section 667.7. For reasons which follow, we conclude this contention has merit.

As pertinent here, section 667.7 provides for increased punishment for defendants who have served two or more prior separate prison terms for certain offenses and who are then convicted of a felony in which they have inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7). [2]

Here, the jury convicted…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.