Robles

People v. Robles

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 1150·51 Cal. App. 4th 627·59 Cal. Rptr. 2d 400·96 D.A.R. 14·96 Daily Journal DAR 14836
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 11, 1996B091345California1,009 words

Opinion

Opinion

Woods, J.

A jury convicted appellants Gilbert Robles (Robles) and Javier Mesa Uribe (Uribe) of attempted second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 664/211; statutory references, unless otherwise noted, are to the Penal Code) and found true an allegation Robles had used a knife (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). Robles and Uribe each admitted a serious felony conviction allegation (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 667, subd. (a)) and Uribe also admitted a state prison allegation (§ 667.5). Each was sentenced to 10 years in state prison.

Appellants raise the following issues: Yurko error (In re Yurko (1974) 10 Cal.3d 857 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 513 , 519 P.2d 561 ]); error to admit evidence of an uncharged offense (Evid. Code, § 1101, subd. (b)); instructional error (CALJIC No. 2.50, mod.); Romero error (People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 [ 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 789 , 917 P.2d 628 ]); and various “three strikes” (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)) claims.

We find all but one of appellants’ claims without merit. We agree with appellants’ claim that remand is required in order for the trial court to exercise its discretion to dismiss or not to dismiss serious felony allegations (People v. Superior Court (Romero),…

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.