P. v. Moultrie
Defendant, Eric Latte Moultrie, appeals from his convictions for two counts of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury upon a peace officer (Pen. Code,[1] 245, subd. (c)) and two counts of resisting by the use of force or violence on an executive officer. ( 69.) Defendant admitted that he was previously convicted of a serious felony. Defendant argues the trial court improperly instructed the jury with CALJIC rather than CALCRIM instructions and improperly imposed the upper term as to count 1. The Attorney General argues the trial court should have imposed additional mandatory court security fees and state court construction penalties. Also, the Attorney General contends the abstract of judgment should be corrected to accurately reflect the sentence imposed by the trial court. Court affirm with modifications.
Comments on P. v. Moultrie