legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Guizar CA6
Defendant Armando Guizar challenges certain fines and fees imposed following his no contest pleas to, among other crimes, attempted burglary; transportation of methamphetamine for sale; possession of marijuana; and being under the influence of methamphetamine. Defendant argues that the drug program and criminal lab analysis fees are not punitive and therefore not subject to penalty assessments. Defendant also argues, and the People concede, that the crime prevention programs fine (and attendant penalty assessments) imposed related to the attempted burglary conviction must be stricken. We previously modified and affirmed the judgment, and defendant petitioned for review. The Supreme Court has transferred the matter with instructions to consider this appeal in light of its intervening decision in People v. Ruiz (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1100 (Ruiz). Consistent with Ruiz, we will again strike the crime prevention programs fine and affirm the judgment as modified.

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