legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Marshall
Appellant challenges the trial courts finding that he violated the terms of his probation, asserting the finding was not supported by substantial evidence because there were conflicts in the testimony. Appellant also contends the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him without a more recent supplemental probation report, and in sentencing him to prison, rather than reinstating his probation. Appellant claims his sentence violated his right to a jury trial under the United States Constitution, because in choosing to impose the upper term, the court relied on four prior convictions which had not been found true by a jury or admitted by appellant. Finally, he requests a review of the in camera hearing on his Pitchess motion.
Our review of the record reveals substantial evidence to support the trial courts probation violation finding. Court conclude the probation report was sufficiently recent, and no prejudice has been shown. Appellant forfeited his challenge to the trial courts discretionary sentencing choices by failing to object below, and he was not entitled to a jury trial as to his prior convictions. Court have reviewed the in camera Pitchess hearing, and conclude the trial court properly exercised its discretion. Thus, Court reject appellants contentions and 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