People v. Williams

Bad Law
1998 Cal. App. LEXIS 122·61 Cal. App. 4th 649·72 Cal. Rptr. 2d 58·98 Daily Journal DAR 1611·98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1150
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 18, 1998H016854California3,920 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wunderlich, J.

I. Statement of the Case

Defendant Richard Carl Williams appeals from a judgment entered after a remand for resentencing. He claims the trial court violated his right to due process by failing to state reasons for adding a year to the sentence previously imposed. We disagree and affirm the judgment.

II. Background

Under a plea bargain, defendant agreed to plead guilty to three counts of residential burglary and one count of receiving stolen property. He also agreed to waive a jury trial on a fourth count of residential burglary and on prior felony convictions, which were alleged as enhancements and as strikes under the three strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(e)). In exchange, the prosecutor agreed, among other things, to a maximum sentence on these offenses and enhancements of 26 years. After a court trial, the court found defendant guilty of the fourth count and also found the prior conviction allegations true. It then sentenced him to 25 years. Finding aggravated circumstances, the court selected the upper six-year term for one burglary and then doubled it under the two strikes provision of the three strikes law (§§667, subd.…

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.