Fear Not Law Articles: PEOPLE v. VINSON Part-II

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID MICHAEL VINSON, Defendant and Appellant. F059302 (Super. Ct. No. BF127977A) OPINION
Filed 2/23/11 Certified for partial publication 3/16/11 (order attached)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

LANDVALUE 77, LLC et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY et al.,
Defendants and Respondents;
KASHIAN ENTERPRISES, L.P.,
Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

F058451

(Super. Ct. Nos. 07CECG02872 & 07CECG02874)

OPINION

STORY CONTINUE FROM PART Iâ€¦.

A. Retroactivity.
The parties agree that Vinson's conviction in the present case was not yet final when the amendment went into effect. (See People v. Vieira (2005) 35 Cal.4th 264, 306 [for determining retroactive application of amendment to criminal statute, judgment is not final until time for petitioning United States Supreme Court for writ of certiorari has passed].) Accordingly, if the amendment to section 666 applies retroactively, Vinson is entitled to its benefits.
The Attorney General originally argued that the amendment did not apply retroactively. At oral argument, however, she withdrew that claim and conceded the point. We believe the concession is well founded, as we explain.
Section 3 provides: â€

Description	David Michael Vinson stands convicted, following a jury trial, of committing petty theft after having previously been convicted of a theft offense. (Pen. Code,[1] Â§ 666.) Following a bifurcated court trial, he was found to have served two prior prison terms. (Â§ 667.5, subd. (b).) Sentenced to a total of five years in prison and ordered to pay various fees and fines, he now appeals. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. In the published portion of this opinion, we conclude the amendment to section 666 that became effective on September 9, 2010, applies retroactively. In the unpublished portion, we reject Vinson's claims of insufficient evidence, and trial and sentencing error.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.