People v. Cheri

California Court of Appeal Dec 30, 1981 No. Crim. 39446Published

Before: Cobey

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a foreign conviction cannot support a sentence enhancement under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (f) unless the record establishes that the foreign offense contains all the elements of the comparable California crime. Because the record of the defendant's Washington conviction was ambiguous and failed to prove these elements, the enhancement was improper.

Issues

Whether the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by imposing a one-year enhancement for a prior foreign conviction that did not meet the statutory requirements of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (f).
Whether the prosecution may use extrinsic evidence of record to establish that a foreign conviction includes all elements of a comparable California felony.

Disposition. Modified and affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“a court may impose an enhancement for a prior conviction in a foreign jurisdiction only if, among other things, the foreign conviction was for an offense which included all of the elements of the comparable California crime”

Opinion

COBEY, Acting P. J.

Defendant, Neil Allan Cheri, also known as David Russell Francis,

appeals from a judgment on a jury verdict convicting him of one count of burglary. (Pen. Code, § 459.) The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in including within its sentence a one-year enhancement for a prior felony conviction in a foreign jurisdiction.

Statement of the Case

On June 12, 1980, the prosecutor filed an information charging defendant with burglary under Penal Code section 459. Two months later, on August 18, 1980, the prosecutor filed an amended information alleging two prior felony convictions, one in California and the other in Washington.

Defendant requested a jury trial on the issues of his guilt and of his two prior convictions. He also made a motion to bifurcate the proceeding in order to avoid possible prejudice on the issue of guilt by the admission of evidence of his two prior convictions. (See

People

Bracamonte

(1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 644, 649 [174 Cal.Rptr. 191].) When the court denied his motion to bifurcate, defendant admitted his prior convictions and moved to exclude them on the ground that they were no longer at issue. The court advised defendant of his constitutional rights and then accepted his admission of his two prior convictions. On December 17, 1980, the jury returned a verdict of guilty and, as noted at the outset of this opinion, the court included in its sentence a one-year enhancement for his prior Washington conviction.

[283]

Discussion

The one-year sentence enhancement for defendant’s prior Washington conviction was imposed pursuant to Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).

Under subdivision (f) of the section, however, a court may impose an enhancement for a prior conviction in a foreign jurisdiction only if, among other things, the foreign conviction was for an offense which included all of the elements of the comparable California crime and would be punishable in California by imprisonment in state prison.

People v. Cheri

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief