P. v. Rosel
On this appeal after remand, defendant Maurillo Ivan Rosel, Jr., raises a number of sentencing errors. The Attorney General concedes two of the three errors, and as we shall discuss below, we accept the concessions and shall modify the judgment accordingly. As to the third error, defendant’s sentence on one count of street terrorism (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (a)),[1] the Attorney General correctly contends that a California Supreme Court decision requires reversal of that count altogether. We agree and order defendant’s conviction on that count reversed.
Comments on P. v. Rosel