Fear Not Law Articles: P. v. Hall

P. v. Hall

Filed 2/22/07 P. v. Hall CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

LEWIS MICHAEL HALL,

Defendant and Appellant.

B190470

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. SA055693)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Robert P. O'Neill, Judge. Affirmed.

Kaplan, Kenegos & Kadin, Jerry Kaplan and Helene Farber for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lawrence M. Daniels, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Viet H. Nguyen, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_____________________________________

Lewis Hall appeals from the judgment entered following his negotiated plea of guilty to possession of marijuana for the purpose of sale and admissions that the crime was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang and that he had sustained a prior felony conviction within the meaning of the â€

Description	Defendant appeals from the judgment entered following his negotiated plea of guilty to possession of marijuana for the purpose of sale and admissions that the crime was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang and that he had sustained a prior felony conviction within the meaning of the "Three Strikes" law. (In exchange for the plea, a charge of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and allegations of additional prior felony convictions were dismissed.) Defendant was sentenced to state prison for seven years, comprised of two years for the offense, doubled under the Three Strikes law, and a three year gang enhancement. He contends that the trial court erroneously denied his motion to suppress evidence. Court affirm.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.