P. v. Stallings
Barnavis Stallings and Shawan Duggins appeal from convictions stemming from a robbery in Los Angeles. Stallings challenges the sufficiency of the evidence that he aided and abetted the robbery. Substantial evidence supports Stallingss conviction for robbery. Both appellants argue the trial court erred in refusing to instruct on the lesser offenses of grand theft person, grand theft, petty theft, and receiving stolen property. In addition, Duggins argues the trial court erred in failing to instruct, sua sponte, on the definition of a deadly weapon. Court find no instructional error. Finally, both appellants argue that the trial court violated their Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to a jury determination beyond a reasonable doubt of aggravating factors upon which upper terms were imposed. Court conclude that the upper terms were properly imposed based upon factors relating to the recidivism of each appellant. To the extent that the trial court relied upon factors not related to recidivism, the error was harmless.
Comments on P. v. Stallings