Bamba

People v. Bamba

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 884·58 Cal. App. 4th 1113·68 Cal. Rptr. 2d 450·97 Daily Journal DAR 13453·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8357
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 29, 1997A073612California3,331 words

Opinion

Opinion

Parrilli, J.

In the published portion of this case, we hold that Penal Code section 236 is neither unconstitutionally vague nor overbroad.

A jury convicted appellant Frank Greg Bamba of one count of assault with a deadly weapon (a van) (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)), one count of felony false imprisonment (§§ 236/237), and one count of possessing methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). The jury further found appellant had personally used a deadly weapon in committing the assault.

In a bifurcated trial, the court found appellant had suffered two prior robbery convictions which constituted strikes under the “Three Strikes” law. (§ 1170.12, subd. (c)(2).) At sentencing, the court reduced the assault with a deadly weapon and methamphetamine possession charges to misdemeanors. Nevertheless, the court sentenced appellant to 25 years to life under the Three Strikes law based on the current felony false imprisonment conviction and appellant’s 2 prior robbery convictions (§ 1170.12, subd. (c)(2). This timely appeal followed.

Appellant raises numerous arguments on appeal. His chief contentions are: (1) The false imprisonment statute (§ 236) is unconstitutionally vague and…

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.