People v. Stinson CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 24, 2022C093993ACalifornia861 words

Opinion

Opinion

BACKGROUND

A jury found defendant guilty of kidnapping for the purpose of robbery, two counts of robbery, and two counts of firearm possession by a felon. (People v. Stinson (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 464, 474.) The jury also found true an enhancement allegation that defendant personally used a firearm to commit the offense. (§ 12022.53, subd. (b); Stinson, at p. 474.) The trial court sentenced defendant to a determinate term of 17 years eight months in state prison (including the mandatory 10 years for the firearm enhancement) plus a consecutive prison term of seven years to life. (Ibid.) On appeal, we affirmed the judgment, but remanded the case to allow the trial court to consider its new discretion to strike the firearm enhancement under Senate Bill No. 620 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2017, ch. 682, §§ 1-2). (People v. Stinson (Jan. 16, 2019, C077621) [nonpub. portion].)

Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 On remand, defendant moved the trial court to strike the enhancement; the People opposed the motion. After considering the parties’ arguments, the court denied the motion, finding it was not in the interests of justice to strike the enhancement.…

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.