Lobato

People v. Lobato

Good Law
109 Cal. App. 4th 762·135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 429·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 851·2003 Daily Journal DAR 6385·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5065
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 11, 2003F040408California1,057 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gomes, J.

Introduction

Defendant and appellant Rudy Ben Lobato appeals from a judgment following a jury trial in which he was convicted of conspiracy to commit certain drug offenses and a weight enhancement allegation was found to be true. In the published portion of the opinion, we reject appellant’s contention that the weight enhancement, which was imposed under Health and Safety Code section 11370.4, subdivision (b)(2), must be vacated because the jury’s verdict form did not expressly include the substantial involvement in the underlying offense element of the allegation. In the unpublished portions of the opinion, we reject appellant’s claim that there is insufficient evidence to support the true finding on the weight enhancement, but conclude that appellant’s sentence was not authorized because appellant was not sentenced based on conspiracy to commit the felony with the greatest maximum term. Accordingly, we remand for resentencing.

Procedural Background

Facts*

Discussion

I. The Weight Enhancement

Appellant contends the true finding on the weight enhancement appended to the conspiracy charge must be stricken because it is not supported by sufficient evidence and the…

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.