People v. Williams

Bad Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 972·49 Cal. App. 4th 1632·57 Cal. Rptr. 2d 448·96 Daily Journal DAR 12495·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7629
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 11, 1996H013331California3,904 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wunderlich, J.

I. Statement of the Case

Defendant Richard Carl Williams appeals from a judgment entered after he pleaded guilty to three counts of residential burglary and one count of receiving stolen property and the court found him guilty of a fourth count of residential burglary and also found true prior conviction allegations.

Defendant claims there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for the burglary count that was tried. He claims the trial court failed to render a verdict on the prior conviction allegations. He claims the court erred in failing to strike an enhancement allegation because it was not a “prior conviction,” in considering as a “strike” a prior conviction suffered before Penal Code section 667, subdivisions (b) through (i), the “three strikes” law, (hereafter § 667 (b)-(i)) was enacted, and in not determining whether to strike the prior allegation convictions in furtherance of justice. He also claims the three strikes law is unconstitutionally vague, it was improperly passed as urgency legislation, and its limitation on the amount of conduct credit he can earn while in prison violates his right to equal protection. Last, he claims the limitation on…

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.