People v. Halo CA3
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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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…