legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Scott
Defendant appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial resulting in his convictions of attempting by threat of force to dissuade a witness (Pen. Code, 136.1, subd. (c)(1)) and of attempting by threat of force to influence testimony or information given to a law enforcement official ( 137, subd. (b)), with findings that the crimes were committed for the benefit of, and in association with, a criminal street gang ( 186.22, subds. (b)(1), (b)(4)(A) & (b)(4)(C)). Defendant admitted that he had a prior serious felony conviction ( 667, subd. (a)(1)), and that he had two prior felony convictions that qualified him for sentencing pursuant to the Three Strikes law ( 667, subds. (b) (i), 1170.12). At sentencing, the trial court struck one of the prior convictions qualifying him for sentencing pursuant to the three strikes law. It treated defendant as a second-strike offender and sentenced him to an aggregate term of 19 years to life in state prison.
He contends that (1) the trial court had a duty to charge the jury with CALJIC No. 17.01, as to unanimity, (2) the evidence of intent is insufficient to support the judgment in count 2, influencing a witness, and (3) he is entitled to further presentence conduct credit.
Only defendants contention regarding his entitlement to presentence conduct credit has merit. As Court explain, ante, Court modify the judgment to award defendant 37 days of presentence conduct credit. In all other respects, Court affirm the judgment.

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