People v. Sloan CA5

California Court of Appeal Jun 16, 2022 No. F083535Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's convictions and sentence, finding no arguable errors in the record following a Wende review. The court specifically rejected the defendant's claims regarding the validity of his convictions and the propriety of his bargained-for sentence.

Issues

Whether possession of a firearm by a felon and possession of ammunition by a prohibited person constitute the same offense.
Whether the consecutive sentences imposed for the firearm and ammunition possession convictions were improper.
Whether the firearm enhancement violated the prohibition against double jeopardy.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The offenses are therefore not the same.”

“He received the benefit of his bargain and is therefore not in a position to complain about the nature or correctness of the bargained-for sentence.”

“Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.”

Filed 6/16/22 P. v. Sloan 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F083535 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 21CR-01991) v.

PHILIP WAYNE SLOAN, JR., OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT * APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Steven K. Slocum, Judge. Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P. J., Detjen, J. and Franson, J.

Appointed counsel for defendant Philip Wayne Sloan, Jr., asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant responded, contending (1) he should not have been convicted of both possession of a firearm by a felon and possession of ammunition by a person prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm because they are essentially the same offense, (2) the terms on those two convictions should not run consecutively, and (3) the firearm enhancement violates the prohibition against double jeopardy. Finding no arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm. BACKGROUND 1 Based on acts defendant committed on May 21, 2021, the Merced County District Attorney filed an information on July 27, 2021, charging defendant with attempted second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 211;2 count 1), carrying a loaded and unregistered handgun (§ 25850, subd. (a); count 2), possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); count 3), possession of ammunition by a person prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1)); count 4), and misdemeanor resisting a police officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1); count 5). As to count 1, the information further alleged defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of the crime (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). On October 26, 2021, defendant pled no contest to counts 1, 3, and 4, and he admitted an amended firearm use allegation on count 1 (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) in exchange for a specific sentence of seven years two months (later corrected to seven years

People v. Sloan CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief