Luckett

People v. Luckett

Bad Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 798·48 Cal. App. 4th 1214·56 Cal. Rptr. 2d 37·96 Daily Journal DAR 10195·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6303
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 21, 1996A071978California2,453 words

Opinion

Opinion

Anderson, J.

Today we are called upon to determine whether the court has authority to dismiss an age enhancement in the interest of justice pursuant to section 1385 of the Penal Code. Mary Luckett (appellant) robbed 2 women, ages 85 and 87, respectively, in their home. She went to their front door, claimed she had a gun, and demanded money. Because they were scared, the victims allowed appellant into their home. Appellant injured no one but stole food and various household items as the victims looked on in fright.

In a court trial, appellant was found guilty of two counts of first degree robbery (§§ 211, 212.5) and one count of first degree burglary (§§ 459, 460, subd. (a)). Appellant had a prior “strike” conviction for robbery that constituted a serious felony (§§ 1170.12, subds. (b) and (c), 667, subd. (a)), four other prior petty theft convictions, and was ineligible for probation pursuant to section 1203.09, subdivision (f), because the victims were over the age of sixty. The court sentenced appellant to three years for the first robbery and a consecutive term of sixteen months for the second, and doubled each, to six years and thirty-two months, respectively, because of…

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.