Cargill

People v. Cargill

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 980·38 Cal. App. 4th 1551·45 Cal. Rptr. 2d 480·95 Daily Journal DAR 13514·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7909
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 25, 1995D021469California1,056 words

Opinion

Opinion

Huffman, J.

This case illustrates the wisdom of the commonly-used phrase, “Timing is everything in life.” In this instance, appellant Bartholemew Cargill was arrested in the possession of cocaine base about 10:15 p.m. on March 7, 1994. That rather uneventful statistical fact becomes more important in light of the action at 2:45 p.m. on the same day in Sacramento when the Governor signed and filed with the Secretary of State the new “three strikes” law. At the time of his current offense, Cargill had suffered at least one qualifying prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of Penal Code section 667, subdivisions (d) and (e).

Cargill appeals his sentence, raising, among other contentions, the urgency measure signed by the Governor on March 7, 1994, was not “immediately” effective until at least March 8, 1994. We will reject all of Cargill’s contentions and affirm the judgment in its entirety.

Facts and Procedural Background

About 10:15 p.m. on March 7, 1994, Cargill was stopped for driving erratically and without headlights. As a result of the arrest that followed, police recovered 8.4 grams of rock cocaine and found Cargill under the influence of drugs.

A jury convicted…

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.