legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Vigeant
Defendant Anthony Vigeant appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motions requesting a new trial, the striking of the special circumstance, and the appointment of an expert. In July 2009, Vigeant was convicted of the first degree murder of David Pettigrew with special circumstances (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 190.2, subd. (a)(17))[1] (count 1), attempted robbery (§§ 664/211) (count 2), and first degree burglary (§ 459) (count 3). The jury found that a principal was armed with a firearm during the commission of all counts. (§§ 12022, subd. (a)(1).) After denial of the new trial motion and other motions, the trial court sentenced Vigeant to life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOP) in count 1, a consecutive term of four years six months in count 2, and an additional year for the principal-armed enhancement. The court stayed the sentence in count 3 under section 654.
Vigeant appeals on the grounds that: (1) the trial court prejudicially erred in denying his motion for new trial, requiring reversal; (2) the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing and to appoint a clinical neuropsychologist, and the errors prejudicially denied Vigeant his constitutional rights; (3) Vigeant’s LWOP sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment; and (4) the sentence in count 2 must be stayed under section 654.

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