Watkins

People v. Watkins

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 646·26 Cal. App. 4th 19·31 Cal. Rptr. 2d 452·94 Daily Journal DAR 8673·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4709
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 22, 1994E011690California4,459 words

Opinion

Opinion

Timlin, J.

I

Procedural Background

The case against defendants Anthony Watkins (Watkins) and Marvin Patrick Munford (Munford) was given to the jury on the following charges:

Following trial, the jury found Watkins and Munford guilty as charged on all counts. It also found the sentence enhancement allegations that Watkins was armed with a firearm not true, but found the sentence enhancement allegations that Munford used a deadly weapon true.

The court denied Watkins probation, without stating any reasons for doing so. It determined count I, the robbery from Parr, to be the principal term of imprisonment (term) and imposed the upper term of six years. On count II, the robbery from Fries, it imposed a one-year and four-month term (one-third the midterm of four years). Imposition of sentence on count III, the burglary, was stayed. On count IV, the assault on Beanblossom, it imposed a one-year term (one-third the midterm of three years). On count VI, the assault on Parr, it imposed one year (one-third the midterm of three years). It ordered all subordinate terms to be served consecutively to each other and to the sentence on count I. Thus, it sentenced Watkins to a total nonstayed…

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.