legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Singh CA3
In an earlier opinion, we affirmed defendant Ravinesh Singh’s conviction of first degree murder and the jury’s true finding on a firearm enhancement imposed under Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (d). The California Supreme Court directed us to vacate the opinion and reconsider the appeal in light of Senate Bill 620 (Stats. 2017, ch. 682), which converted the firearm enhancement from mandatory to discretionary. (§ 12022.53, subd. (h).) Defendant asks us to remand the matter so the trial court may exercise its discretion to determine whether to impose the firearm enhancement.
We also permitted defendant to file supplemental briefing on Assembly Bill 1308 (Stats. 2017, ch. 675, § 1). This statute requires youth offender parole hearings for felons who were 25 years of age or younger at the time of the crime. (§ 3051, subd. (b).) A felon who has a right to a youth offender parole hearing has a right to make a record of facts relevant to his or her eventual hearing.

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