People v. Moore CA2/7

California Court of Appeal Oct 9, 2013 No. B242606Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing the defendant to the upper term for possession of cocaine, as the court properly considered the defendant's extensive criminal history and rejected the defendant's proposed mitigating factors.

Issues

Did the trial court abuse its discretion by imposing the upper term sentence for possession of cocaine?
Did the trial court fail to consider mitigating factors, including the defendant's drug addiction and the small quantity of drugs involved?

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court expressly found that no factor was mitigating at the time of sentencing; this finding demonstrates that the court evaluated the issue.”

“The trial court made an individualized sentencing choice well within its discretion.”

Filed 10/9/13 P. v. Moore CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

THE PEOPLE, B242606

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA122183) v.

WALTER MOORE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ricardo R. Ocampo, Judge. Affirmed. Michael Allen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________________

Walter Moore appeals from the judgment entered after he was convicted by a jury of simple assault and possession of cocaine. Moore contends the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to the upper term for possession of cocaine. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. The Charges In an amended information Moore was charged with assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1), count 1)1 with a special allegation he had inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7) and possession of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, count 2). The information also specially alleged Moore had suffered two prior serious or violent felony convictions for aggravated assault within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a)(1) and the three strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)- (d)) and had served two separate prison terms for felonies (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Represented by counsel, Moore pleaded not guilty and denied the special allegations.

People v. Moore CA2/7

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

THE PEOPLE, B242606

WALTER MOORE,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

ZELON, J.

PERLUSS, P. J.

WOODS, J.

AI Brief