legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Quinonez
Law enforcement officers investigated reports of four pipe bombs--two at an elementary school, one at a children's center, and one in an orchard. Meanwhile, as law enforcement officers were occupied investigating the bomb reports two masked men entered a business in a different part of town, pointed a semi-automatic handgun at the employees, and demanded cashA criminal law decision regarding conspiracy to commit robbery, possession of a destructive device near a school or other public place, making a false bomb report to a peace officer, and attempted robbery. On appeal, defendant challenges the admissibility of his confession and the trial court's exclusion of other statements made in the course of his interviews with the police. The appeals court finds no merit in these contentions. The appelas court finds merit in defendant's final argument that section 654 prohibits punishment for conspiracy and for the substantive crimes that were the object of the conspiracy. Accordingly, the appeals court reverse the judgment and remand the matter to the trial court for resentencing.

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
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale