People v. Willis

California Court of Appeal Sep 18, 1978 No. Crim. 3296Published

Before: Franson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the retroactive sentencing provisions of the Uniform Determinate Sentencing Act do not violate equal protection and that the defendant was not denied his right to a speedy trial.

Issues

Does Penal Code section 1170.2 violate equal protection by creating a classification based on the date of the offense?
Was the defendant denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial due to a 125-day delay between the filing of the complaint and trial?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Fixing the day the offense was committed as the watershed results in an entirely reasonable classification and does not deny equal protection to those whose offenses predate July 1, 1977.”

“In determining whether a defendant has been denied a right to a speedy trial, the trial court is required to engage in a balancing test: The prejudicial effect of the delay must be weighed against any justification.”

Opinion

FRANSON, Acting P. J.

Statement of the Case

On April 18, 1977, an indictment was filed in the Superior Court of Fresno County charging appellant with 16 counts of first degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 211a) and alleging use of a firearm, and 1 count of second degree robbery. Appellant was arraigned and pled not guilty to all counts.

On May 25, 1977, appellant’s Penal Code section 995 motion was granted as to counts eight and thirteen. Counts one through five, nine, twelve, and fourteen were dismissed on the People’s motion and appellant waived his right to a juiy trial and submitted the remaining counts on the grand jury transcript. Appellant was thereafter found guilty on all remaining counts as charged and the court specifically found the use allegations pursuant to Penal Code section 12022.5 to be true as to each count.

On June 10, 1977, appellant was sentenced to state prison for the term prescribed by law; count seven to be served consecutive with count six, and count ten to be served consecutive with counts six and seven. Counts six, seven, and ten were ordered to be served consecutive to appellant’s previously ordered robbery term from Kings County, while counts eleven and fifteen through seventeen were ordered to be served concurrent with the Kings County term.

[955]

A statement of the facts upon which the convictions are predicated is unnecessary to this appeal.

No Equal Protection Denial by Penal Code Section 1170.2

Appellant, who committed his crimes prior to July 1, 1977, contends that the retroactivity portions of the Uniform Determinate Sentencing Act of 1976 (Pen. Code, § 1170.2) violate his constitutional rights to equal protection. Specifically, he argues that his rights are violated because inmates who commit crimes after July 1, 1977, have an opportunity to receive the lower of the three prison terms by showing the existence of mitigating factors—whereas inmates who committed crimes prior to July 1, 1977, are to be sentenced retroactively under the new law pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.2 which does not permit the fixing of the lower of the three possible prison terms after a showing of mitigating factors.

People v. Willis

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief