legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Rankin
Arthur Francis Rankin pled guilty to inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant (Pen. Code, 273.5)[1] (count 1). Rankin also admitted that he personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim within the meaning of section 12022.7, subdivision (a). At sentencing, the trial court determined that Rankin was presumptively ineligible for probation, pursuant to section 1203, subdivision (e)(3). The trial court further found that this case was not an "unusual case within the meaning of the sentencing rules," and denied probation. The court sentenced Rankin to a total term of five years in prison.

On appeal, Rankin claims the trial court erred under People v. Lewis (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 837, 854 (Lewis), in determining that he was presumptively ineligible for probation pursuant to section 1203, subdivision (e)(3), because the court did not find that Rankin willfully inflicted great bodily injury. Rankin also claims that the trial court erred in failing to find that his case was an unusual one, meriting a sentence of probation. Rankin further claims that he must be allowed to withdraw his plea because the trial court failed to "follow through on [its] representation" that the court would find the case to be an unusual one, and would grant him probation if it were determined that Rankin had a mental disorder for which there was effective treatment available. 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
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale