Applin

People v. Applin

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 1123·40 Cal. App. 4th 404·46 Cal. Rptr. 2d 862·95 Daily Journal DAR 15268·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8830
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 17, 1995No. F022260California2,270 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Dibiaso, J.

*407 Opinion

Following denial of his suppression motion (Pen. Code, 1 § 1538.5), appellant Jesse Chris Applin pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) and admitted having suffered a prior felony conviction (§ 667, subds. (c)-(j)). He was sentenced to 32 months in prison, calculated as the lower term of 16 months doubled pursuant to section 667, subdivision (e). He obtained a certificate of probable cause (§ 1237.5) and has timely appealed.

In the published portion of this opinion, we will hold that section 667, subdivision (c)(5), a provision of the so-called “three strikes” law, does not violate principles of equal protection in its reduced award of conduct credits to recidivist offenders. In the unpublished portion of this opinion, we will hold that the trial court did not err when it denied appellant’s motion to suppress evidence.

Discussion

I. Motion to Suppress Evidence *

II. Section 667, Subdivision (c)(5)

Subdivisions (b) through (i) of section 667 comprise the three strikes law, which was enacted as an urgency measure and which became effective on March 7, 1994. (Stats. 1994, ch. 12, §§ 1-2.) 12 The Legislature articulated…

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.