Fear Not Law Articles: P. v. Riel

P. v. Riel

Filed 1/12/07 P. v. Riel CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

JULIAN JOE RIEL,

Defendant and Appellant.

G036592

(Super. Ct. No. 04WF0822)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, M. Marc Kelly, Judge. Affirmed.

James M. Crawford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Rhonda Cartwright-Ladendorf and Erika Hiramatsu, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

Appellant Julian Joe Riel was convicted of the felony of reckless evasion of a peace officer under California Vehicle Code section 2800.2 and driving without a valid license, a misdemeanor under section 12500, subdivision (a) of the same code. He was sentenced to the aggravated term of three years for the felony. The court struck two of his â€

Description	Appellant was convicted of the felony of reckless evasion of a peace officer under California Vehicle Code section 2800.2 and driving without a valid license, a misdemeanor under section 12500, subdivision (a) of the same code. He was sentenced to the aggravated term of three years for the felony. The court struck two of his 'Three Strikes' law priors for sentencing, but used the third to double his term for the reckless evasion and added another year for another prior. The resultant sentence was imprisonment for seven years. Appellant does not complain about the conduct of his trial, so a precis of its facts is not necessary. Appellant complains only that his sentencing was improper. Court find no flaw in the sentencing that court can address, and therefore affirm the conviction in its entirety.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.