In re
WILLIE CLIFFORD COLEY
Filed 8/4/10
IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
FIVE
In re
WILLIE CLIFFORD COLEY
on
Habeas Corpus.
B224400
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. MA022987)
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Dorothy L. Shubin, Judge. Denied.
Nancy L. Tetreault, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Petitioner.
Edmund G.
Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Victoria B.
Wilson, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Janet E. Neely and Noah P. Hill,
Deputy Attorneys General, for Appellant.
>
I. INTRODUCTION
Petitioner was convicted of failing
to update his sex offender registration within five working days of his
birthday (former Pen. Code, § 290, subd. (a)(1)(D))[1] and, due to his prior criminal convictions, was sentenced to 25
years to life pursuant to the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, § 1170.12 subds.
(b)-(i)).
In response to an order issued by
the California Supreme Court, we consider whether, in light of the holding in
1066 (Carmony), petitioner's sentence
violates the Eighth Amendment. We
conclude petitioner's sentence does not violate the Eighth Amendment and respectfully
disagree with Carmony.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Petitioner was arrested as part of
a â€
| Description | Petitioner was convicted of failing to update his sex offender registration within five working days of his birthday (former Pen. Code, § 290, subd. (a)(1)(D))[1] and, due to his prior criminal convictions, was sentenced to 25 years to life pursuant to the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, § 1170.12 subds. (b)-(i)). In response to an order issued by the California Supreme Court, we consider whether, in light of the holding in People v. Carmony (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1066 (Carmony), petitioner's sentence violates the Eighth Amendment. We conclude petitioner's sentence does not violate the Eighth Amendment and respectfully disagree with Carmony. |
| Rating |
