Mumm

People v. Mumm

Good Law
120 Cal. Rptr. 2d 18·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 4149·2002 Daily Journal DAR 5826·98 Cal. App. 4th 812·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4566
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 30, 2002No. D035303California2,401 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Haller, J.

In superior court case No. SCD146281, Jake Michael Mumm pleaded guilty to possessing methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) and admitted he had a prior drug-related conviction (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11378, 11370.2, subd. (c)). Mumm also admitted he had been convicted of armed robbery in Arizona. In case No. SCD147722, Mumm pleaded guilty to possessing methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and admitted the prior Arizona armed robbery conviction. As to both cases, the court agreed to determine whether Mumm’s prior Arizona conviction was a strike within the meaning of the three strikes law. (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12.)

Mumm unsuccessfully moved to strike the prior conviction in both cases. The court then found Mumm’s Arizona robbery conviction qualified as a strike prior under the three strikes law. In case No. SCD146281, the court sentenced Mumm to prison for the middle term of two years, doubled to four years for the strike prior conviction. In case No. SCD147722, the court imposed a consecutive one-year four-month term plus a three-year enhancement for the prior drug-related conviction, for a total sentence of eight…

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.