Hubbard

People v. Hubbard

Bad Law
237 Cal. Rptr. 3d 755·27 Cal. App. 5th 9
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 24, 2018C082799California1,391 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Butz, J.

Defendant Sidney Scott Hubbard, a three strikes prisoner who was serving an indeterminate life sentence, successfully filed a petition for resentencing under Proposition 36. ( Pen. Code, § 1170.126.) 1 On appeal, he contends the trial court erred in resentencing him because it improperly refused to consider all aspects of his sentence, including exercising its discretion under section 1385. Defendant further argues we should remand the matter for consideration of concurrent sentences and the application of section 654. We will vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the trial court for resentencing.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendant received a third strike sentence in 1996, based on the commission of attempted robbery ( Pen. Code, §§ 664, 211 ) and reckless evasion of a police pursuit ( Veh. Code, § 2800.2 ), with enhancements for five prior strikes ( Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b) - (i) ) and two prior prison terms ( Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b) ). ( People v. Hubbard (Nov. 19, 2015, C073340) 2015 WL 7302197 [nonpub. opn.]; People v. Hubbard (Jan. 12, 1999, C025306) [nonpub. opn.].) We affirmed his conviction in 1999. ( People v. Hubbard , supra , C025306.)

In…

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.