P. v. Brimage CA5
A jury found Nicholas Brimage guilty of unlawfully possessing a firearm and ammunition. In a separate bench trial, he was found to have suffered a prior strike conviction within the meaning of California’s Three Strikes law and to have served multiple prior prison terms. Consequently, the trial court imposed a nine-year prison sentence.
Brimage seeks review of the denial of a discovery motion made pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess). He also alleges instructional error and, with regard to the finding of a prior strike conviction, a violation of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The latter claim is governed by People v. Gallardo (2017) 4 Cal.5th 120 (Gallardo), which holds that sentencing courts cannot look beyond “facts the jury was necessarily required to find to render a guilty verdict, or that the defendant admitted as the factual basis for a guilty plea” to determine the nature of a prior conviction.
Comments on P. v. Brimage CA5