P. v. Vulangi CA1/3
Defendant argues, inter alia, that his constitutional rights were violated when law enforcement failed to properly advise him of his right under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda) to have an attorney present before and during questioning. In supplemental briefing, defendant raises new arguments that, in light of the electorate’s enactment of Proposition 57, the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016 (Proposition 57), on November 8, 2016, and subsequent statutory amendments, his case must be remanded to allow the trial court to decide in the first instance whether, first, he is fit to be tried in adult criminal court although he was 17 years old when committing these crimes and, second, whether the court should exercise its discretion to strike the consecutive 25-years-to-life term he received for the firearm enhancement. For reasons we will discuss, we agree
Comments on P. v. Vulangi CA1/3