legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Pittman CA2/6
Appellant filed briefs contending the court erred in failing to give a unanimity instruction (CALCRIM No. 3500) on the criminal threats count, and in accepting the jury’s verdict in appellant’s absence rather than granting a continuance. After we issued our decision affirming the judgment, we granted appellant’s petition for rehearing on the issue whether he is entitled to resentencing in light of Assembly Bill No. 124 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.; hereinafter AB 124), which went into effect while this appeal was pending. The People agree that appellant is entitled to resentencing under the new legislation, and we shall order the matter remanded accordingly.

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
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale