People v. Hall CA5

California Court of Appeal Aug 26, 2024 No. F084163Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to strike the defendant's firearm use enhancement, as the court reasonably determined that the defendant's active and violent use of a firearm outweighed mitigating factors such as his youth and lack of criminal history.

Issues

Did the trial court abuse its discretion by declining to strike the firearm use enhancement under Penal Code section 1385?
Did the trial court err in its application of the mitigating factors listed in Penal Code section 1385, subdivision (c)(2)?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The reason why the Court would decline to exercise that authority would be that the manner in which this firearm was used was active rather than a passive use of a firearm.”

“It is not an abuse of discretion for the court to determine that the interests of society to punish such violent and dangerous behavior outweigh appellant’s youthfulness and lack of criminal history.”

Filed 8/26/24 P. v. Hall CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F084163 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F21908187) v.

DASHAWN TYRIQ HALL, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. F. Brian Alvarez, Judge. Ross Thomas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen and Warda Ali-Baloch, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Poochigian, Acting P. J., Smith, J. and Meehan, J.

INTRODUCTION Dashawn Tyriq Hall, appellant, was convicted of second degree robbery with a personal use of a firearm enhancement. He appeals his sentence of 12 years, arguing the trial court abused its discretion when it declined to strike the firearm use enhancement. We affirm. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On December 20, 2021, the Fresno County District Attorney’s Office filed an information charging appellant with one count of second degree robbery in violation of Penal Code, section 211,1 with a personal use of a firearm enhancement pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivision (b). On February 28, 2022, a jury found appellant guilty of second degree robbery and found true the personal use of a firearm enhancement. On March 28, 2022, the trial court sentenced appellant to the low term of two years on the second degree robbery, and 10 years on the firearm enhancement, for an aggregate term of 12 years in prison. STATEMENT OF FACTS On January 24, 2021, victim K.D. agreed to meet a potential buyer for his athletic shoes at a local high school. He communicated with the buyer through the buyer’s social media account and negotiated to sell the shoes to the buyer for $320. K.D. drove to the high school with his brother, R.D., who remained in the car while he got out. After approximately 30 minutes, two individuals arrived in a white car with a black or broken bumper. The driver, later identified as T.H., got out of the car, and the passenger, later identified as appellant, initially remained inside. Surveillance camera footage from the high school showed the driver was wearing a black hooded sweater with a brand logo on it, and the passenger was wearing a red shirt and a black sweater with

People v. Hall CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief