Fear Not Law Articles: P. v. Lesopravsky

P. v. Lesopravsky

Filed 2/13/07 P. v. Lesopravsky CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

KENT LESOPRAVSKY,

Defendant and Appellant.

B187964

(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. LA048660)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Kathryne Ann Stolz, Judge. Modified and affirmed.

Valerie G. Wass, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Catherine Okawa Kohm, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant Kent Lesopravsky was convicted by a jury of possession of a controlled substance and giving false information to a police officer. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a); Pen. Code, § 148.9, subd. (a).) He admitted that he had been convicted of residential burglary, a serious felony within the meaning of the â€

Description	Defendant was convicted by a jury of possession of a controlled substance and giving false information to a police officer. (Health and Saf. Code, S 11377, subd. (a); Pen. Code, S 148.9, subd. (a).) He admitted that he had been convicted of residential burglary, a serious felony within the meaning of the "Three Strikes" law. (Pen. Code, SS 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d).) Probation was denied and he was sentenced to a four-year term in state prison. He appeals, arguing the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument and the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to reduce the possession charge to a misdemeanor, grant him probation, and strike his prior conviction of a serious felony. The Attorney General argues that the trial court failed to impose the required penalty assessments. Court modify the judgment to reflect the imposition of those assessments and affirm.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.