P. v. Trotter CA2/8
Defendant-siblings Destiny, Donald, and Daven Trotter appeal their convictions for attempted burglary. Defendants argue that the trial court abused its discretion in denying their Romero motions. Destiny and Donald assert that the trial court violated the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment in sentencing them to 40 and 35 years, respectively. Daven argues his 9-year sentence should be reversed because the trial court improperly admitted prior bad act evidence regarding a similar attempted burglary. Destiny and Donald also assert that the abstracts of judgment should be amended to reflect 154 days of presentence conduct credit.
In our original opinion in this case, we agreed the trial court erred in calculating Destiny’s and Donald’s presentence credit and directed the superior court to modify the abstracts of judgment so that each receives 154 days total presentence conduct credit. We affirmed on all other grounds.
Comments on P. v. Trotter CA2/8