legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Ortiz
A jury found James Ortiz guilty of first degree robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, criminal threats, unlawfully taking/driving a vehicle, and evading the police with reckless driving. The jury also found true an enhancement allegation that Ortiz personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon in committing the criminal threats offense. Ortiz waived a jury trial on alleged priors, and the court found that Ortiz had previously suffered two prison priors (Pen. Code,[1] 1203, subd. (e)(4) & 667.5, subd. (b)), and a serious felony prior, which qualified as a strike prior ( 667, subd. (a)(1), 668, 1192.7, subd. (c)). The court imposed a sentence of 18 years and four months, which included a six year upper term for the robbery conviction (doubled because of the strike).
Subsequent to our decision, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in People v. Towne (2008) 44 Cal.4th 63, which defined the scope of the prior conviction exception to the Apprendi rule. The Supreme Court then transferred this case back to this court with directions to vacate our previous decision and reconsider the case in light of Towne. We have received supplemental briefing from the parties addressing the impact of Towne on Ortiz's sentence. Based on Towne, Court now affirm the judgment as to both sentence and the convictions.


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