P. v. Pollins CA6
Defendant Jabar Exsavia Pollins was convicted by a jury of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5). The jury also found true an enhancement that he personally used a firearm during the commission of the offense (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). Defendant was sentenced to a total term of 12 years in prison. On appeal, he argues the trial court erred when it admitted expert testimony on pimping and pandering. He claims this testimony was irrelevant, prejudicial, and amounted to improper profile evidence. For the reasons set forth below, we find no merit in defendant’s argument that expert testimony was admitted in error.
While defendant’s appeal was pending, the Legislature amended section 12022.53, subdivision (h), effective January 1, 2018. (Stats. 2017, ch. 682, § 2, eff. Jan. 1, 2018.) Section 12022.53, subdivision (h) now grants trial courts the discretion to strike or dismiss firearm enhancements pursuant to section 1385.
Comments on P. v. Pollins CA6