legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Canady
Appellant Jerome Canady appeals from the court’s sentencing determinations. He contends the court erred in imposing multiple statutory enhancement provisions for the same two prior offenses. In the alternative, he argues the court abused its discretion in deciding to impose two one-year enhancements for his prior prison terms pursuant to Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b),[1] in addition to three five-year enhancements under section 667, subdivision (a)(1), which were ordered by this court in a prior unpublished opinion. Appellant contends the court also erred in failing to recalculate his credits and to take into consideration the time he served prior to resentencing. Respondent agrees that the enhancements were imposed improperly and that the court should have recalculated his credits, including the actual days in custody up to the time of resentencing.
We shall direct the trial court to strike the two one-year enhancements that were imposed under section 667.5, subdivision (b), and remand the case to that court for recalculation of presentence credits.

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