Defendant Eddie S. Simpson appeals following his jury conviction of attempted robbery of the first degree (Pen. Code, §§ 211 & 664).[1] Defendant admitted a prior residential burglary conviction. The court sentenced defendant to nine years in prison, a term that included a then-mandatory five-year enhancement for the prior serious felony conviction. (§ 667, former subd. (a)(1); § 1385, former subd. (b).)
On appeal, defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to show specific intent to commit robbery. He also contends the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury, sua sponte, on the lesser included offense of attempted theft. And, in supplemental briefing, defendant contends legislation that went into effect on January 1, 2019, ending the statutory prohibition on a trial court’s ability to strike a prior serious felony enhancement, applies and requires a remand for a new sentencing hearing.
[1] Further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Description
Defendant Eddie S. Simpson appeals following his jury conviction of attempted robbery of the first degree (Pen. Code, §§ 211 & 664). Defendant admitted a prior residential burglary conviction. The court sentenced defendant to nine years in prison, a term that included a then-mandatory five-year enhancement for the prior serious felony conviction. (§ 667, former subd. (a)(1); § 1385, former subd. (b).) On appeal, defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to show specific intent to commit robbery. He also contends the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury, sua sponte, on the lesser included offense of attempted theft. And, in supplemental briefing, defendant contends legislation that went into effect on January 1, 2019, ending the statutory prohibition on a trial court’s ability to strike a prior serious felony enhancement, applies and requires a remand for a new sentencing hearing.
