P. v. Cromwell
Following denial of his motion to suppress evidence and partial denial of his Pitchess[1]motion, defendant Chezarae Cromwell pled no contest to resisting an officer (Pen. Code, 69 On appeal, defendant contends (1) the trial court erred in the compliance with and ruling on the Pitchess motion; (2) the trial court erred and abused its discretion in denying the Pitchess motion as to one police officers records for dishonesty, denying defendant his due process rights; and (3) imposition of the aggravated sentence of three years violated Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. [127 S.Ct. 856] (Cunningham). Court affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Cromwell