P. v. Pitts
Patrick Vincent Pitts appeals from the judgment sending him to prison for the aggregate period of 25 years to life following a jury trial in which he was convicted of transporting marijuana, possessing marijuana for the purpose of sales, grand theft of an automobile by false pretense, and possession of a forged drivers license. (See 11360, subd. (a), 11359; Pen. Code, 470b, 487, subd. (d)(1).) A subsequent court trial found that Pitts had three prior strike convictions and a prior prison term, although the one-year enhancement for the latter allegation was stricken by the court for sentencing purposes. (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i), 667.5, subd. (b), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d).)
On appeal, Pitts contends he was deprived of his right to due process when the prosecution amended the information charging his transportation of marijuana but then failed to include reference to the amount that had to exceed 28.5 grams. We disagree. Pitts also contends the abstract of judgment must be corrected because it failed to accurately record the sentencing courts stay of the term on count two (the possession for sale of the marijuana) and instead stayed imposition of the term for count three (the grand theft of the vehicle). The Attorney General responds to this latter issue by noting that the sentencing court imposed an unauthorized sentence when it stayed the term for one count and ordered two other counts to be served concurrently. Pitts replies that the state failed to object to the discretionary finding and thus waived this complaint. Court order the abstract corrected to conform to the actual judgment of the court, but, as raised by the Attorney General, one count of the judgment must be reversed and remanded as the courts order imposed an unauthorized sentence.
Comments on P. v. Pitts