People v. Halo CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 9, 2022C092509California16,268 words

Opinion

Opinion

Earl, J.

Filed 8/9/22 P. v. Halo CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C092509

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 17FE006817)

v.

PETER HALO et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

Following a jury trial, codefendants Shaun Smith and Peter Halo were found guilty of numerous counts of violating Penal Code sections 487 (grand theft) and 115 (offering false documents for recording).1 On appeal, Smith argues his entire judgment of conviction must be reversed because (1) he was not brought to trial within 60 days, in violation of section 1382, and (2) the court erroneously and prejudicially allowed the

Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1 People’s…

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.