Hill

People v. Hill

Bad Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 719·37 Cal. App. 4th 220·44 Cal. Rptr. 11·44 Cal. Rptr. 2d 11·95 Daily Journal DAR 10288
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 31, 1995C018905California2,565 words

Opinion

Opinion

Morrison, J.

vThomas Hill challenges his sentence under the

new so-called “three strikes” law (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i); Stats. 1994, ch. 12, §§ 1-2). He received his first “strike” in 1991 when he was convicted of robbery (Pen. Code, §211). In the spring of 1994, he was charged in separate complaints with two new felonies, possession of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) and petty theft with a prior theft-related conviction (Pen. Code, § 666; all further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code). He pled no contest to the charged offenses, admitted his prior conviction under section 667, subdivision (d), and the allegation of a prior prison term under section 667.5, subdivision (b). Defendant was sentenced to 48 months in prison, calculated as double the low term (16 months) for the drug offense plus double one-third the midterm (8 months) on the theft charge. The court imposed one year for the prison term enhancement and then struck it.

On appeal, defendant contends (1) the three strikes law does not apply to him because only felony convictions after March 7, 1994, may be used as “strikes”; (2) the law is unconstitutionally vague; (3) his…

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.