People v. Richmond CA5

California Court of Appeal Jun 3, 2022 No. F083041Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a trial court may properly impose both a Three Strikes law sentence enhancement and a five-year prior serious felony enhancement based on the same prior conviction.

Issues

Whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a five-year enhancement for a prior serious felony conviction when the same conviction was used to double the defendant's life term under the Three Strikes law.
Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the imposition of the enhancement.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We hold the sentence was proper, and affirm.”

“a five-year term consecutive to a Three Strikes term may be authorized, to fulfill the intent of the electorate in enacting the Three Strikes Law, even though both are based on the same prior conviction.”

Filed 6/3/22 P. v. Richmond 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F083041 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF170010A) v.

ELDRICK RICHMOND, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. John D. Oglesby, Judge. Charles M. Bonneau, Jr., 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, Louis M. Vasquez, Amanda D. Cary and William K. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Franson, Acting P. J., Smith, J. and Snauffer, J.

Eldrick Richmond was convicted of murder. In a prior appeal, we found error related to the first degree premeditation finding and reversed the judgment with directions to accept a reduction to second degree murder or retry the premeditation allegation. (People v. Richmond (Feb. 19, 2021, F078340) [nonpub. opn.].) The People chose the former. Upon remand, the court resentenced Richmond to serve 35 years to life in prison based in part on enhancements for a prior strike and prior serious felony conviction. The prior convictions were the same prior conviction. At issue in this appeal is whether the court properly imposed the prior serious felony enhancement. We hold the sentence was proper, and affirm. BACKGROUND1 The sentencing hearing proceeded quickly. After one victim impact statement, neither party advocated a particular sentence. The court sentenced Richmond to serve 35 years to life in prison. The sentence was based on 15 years to life for murder (Pen. Code,2 § 187), doubled for a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i) & 1170.12, subds. (c)-(g)), plus five years for a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)). The two prior convictions were based on a single prior conviction. DISCUSSION Richmond argues “the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a five-year enhancement term for the prior serious felony conviction, in view of the doubling of the life term based on the same prior serious felony conviction, therefore the matter must be remanded.” Alternatively, he faults counsel for not objecting to its imposition. In essence, he argues the Three Strikes law is incompatible with section 667,

People v. Richmond CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief