legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Soto
Defendant pleaded no contest to four counts of forcible lewd and lascivious acts on a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (b)(1), hereafter, 288(b)(1)). The court sentenced defendant to a total prison term of 32 years, based upon consecutive upper term sentences of eight years for each count.
Defendant challenged the conviction, claiming that the court committed sentencing error: (1) under the United States Supreme Courts decision in Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 (Blakely), which was decided after judgment was entered on defendants conviction; and (2) by imposing an ex post facto parole revocation restitution fine under section 1202.45.
In our decision filed July 8, 2005, Court held, inter alia, that there was no Blakely error. Thereafter, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the prior judgment, and remanded the case to us for further consideration in light of the Supreme Courts decision in Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. [127 S.Ct. 856] (Cunningham). After such reconsideration, Court conclude that there was Blakely error. Court hold further that imposition of the fine was improper. Court therefore reverse and remand for resentencing with instructions that any new sentence not include a parole revocation restitution fine.

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale