 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Minor8/31/2004
undeniably, that any system or law that does not take into account, in case of revocation, the already-endured subjection to such limitations during the preceding period of custody, constitutes an open violation of the principles enunciated in Art. 13 of the [Italian] Constitution since the non-recognition of the custody period in case of probation failure is the same as the application of an additional sanction[.]" Because of the application of this "additional **242 sanction," the court determined the 11- year prison term sought by the Riverside County Probation Department "clearly represents an excessive sentence entirely disproportionate to the crime charged," and therefore violative of yet another provision of the Italian Constitution ("Art. 27, Paragraph 3").
As for the Orange County cases, the court based its decision to grant extradition for these crimes on the existence of parallel Italian criminal statutes concerning the substantive crimes charged, as well as the "serious evidence of guilt" in the record.
Upon extradition of Minor to Orange County, the People filed two informations against him. The first information (Case No. NB 98 HF 1269) charged him with assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer (count 1) and hit and run from an injury accident (count 2). The second information charged Minor with driving under the influence of alcohol and with a blood-alcohol level over 0.08 percent. Both informations alleged as an enhancement Minor's previous felony conviction for vehicular manslaughter in the Riverside case.
The assault on an officer case proceeded to trial and a jury convicted Minor of hit and run but deadlocked on the assault charge. Minor then waived jury trial on that charge and the court found him guilty. Minor admitted the prior serious felony conviction allegation but objected to its use against him on the ground the extradition order barred any punishment based on the facts of the Riverside case. In the drunk driving case, Minor pled guilty to both Vehicle Code violations and admitted the prior conviction allegation, again under protest.
*1436 The court sentenced Minor to prison for the aggravated term of five years for his assault on a peace officer, then doubled that sentence pursuant to section 667, subdivisions (d) and (e)(1) based on Minor's prior " strike" in the Riverside case. The court stayed the sentence for the hit-and-run conviction. In the drunk driving case, the court sentenced Minor to three years in prison, concurrent with the 10-year term already imposed. Absent the prior Vehicle Code conviction in the Riverside case, the maximum term for the drunk driving conviction would have been one year. At sentencing, Minor renewed his objection to the use of his Riverside felony to enhance his sentence, arguing again that the extradition order protected him from any punishment arising from the facts of the Riverside case.
Minor obtained a certificate of probable cause to appeal his sentence in the drunk driving case. He appealed in both cases, asserting the court violated the extradition order by using his conviction in the Riverside case as a sentencing enhancement. At Minor's request, we consolidated the two appeals.
DISCUSSION
Minor's sole argument on appeal is that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by enhancing his sentence based on the vehicular manslaughter conviction in the Riverside case. Minor contends the extradition order barred any use of that conviction for punishment purposes. He asserts this conclusion flows from the internationally recognized "doctrine of specialty" and the specific terms of the extradition order involved here. He is wrong.
The doctrine of specialty is a fundamental underpinning of extradition law. It is a simple proposition: " 'The doc
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|