Rose

People v. Rose

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 609·56 Cal. App. 4th 990·65 Cal. Rptr. 2d 887·97 Daily Journal DAR 9532·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5959
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 25, 1997B102453California1,289 words

Opinion

Opinion

Grignon, J.

Defendant and appellant Stanton Edward Rose appeals from a judgment following a jury trial in which he was convicted of felony second degree burglary and felony petty theft with a prior theft conviction and three prior serious felony convictions were found to be true. Defendant was sentenced to state prison for 25 years to life. Defendant contends the trial court erred when it refused to reduce the offenses to misdemeanors, as required by Penal Code section 659. In the published portion of the opinion, we conclude the trial court was not required to reduce defendant’s felony convictions to misdemeanor convictions under section 659, even though he was convicted as an aider and abettor and the actual perpetrator was convicted of a misdemeanor. In the unpublished portion of the opinion, we address the remaining contentions. Defendant contends the trial court failed to exercise its discretion to strike the two prior robbery convictions and his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. The prosecution contends defendant is not entitled to any presentence conduct credit. We remand for resentencing, but otherwise affirm.

Procedural Background

Defendant and codefendant…

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.