legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Roessler CA3
The trial court denied defendant Michael Lee Roessler’s request to strike a firearm enhancement under Penal Code section 12022.53. Defendant appeals that denial, arguing the court failed to consider whether it should reduce, rather than strike, the enhancement.
We filed an opinion on July 16, 2021, in which we concluded the trial court did not, in fact, have the authority to reduce, rather than strike, the enhancement, and thus affirmed the judgment. Our Supreme Court granted review on September 29, 2021.
On April 27, 2022, the Supreme Court transferred the matter back to this court with instructions to vacate our previous decision and reconsider the cause in light of People v. Tirado (2022) 12 Cal.5th 688 (Tirado), which concluded that trial courts are permitted to strike a firearm enhancement under section 12022.53, subdivision (d) and impose a lesser, uncharged firearm enhancement instead. Both parties submitted supplemental briefing.

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