P. v. Stephens CA5
Following a jury trial, defendant Robert Lee Stephens was convicted of one count of assault with a deadly weapon. In this appeal, defendant argues (1) the trial court imposed a sentence that violated the state’s constitutional prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment, (2) the trial court abused its discretion by not granting a motion that would have stricken one of his prior convictions for purposes of sentencing, and (3) a remand is necessary for resentencing due to recent legislative changes. After considering all issues raised in this appeal, we find the sentence imposed did not constitute cruel or unusual punishment, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion when failing to strike one of defendant’s prior convictions at the time of sentencing. However, a remand is now necessary to vacate the sentence imposed and resentence defendant consistent with legislative changes made to the relevant sentencing laws since he was last sentenced in this case.
Comments on P. v. Stephens CA5