 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Rushing6/28/2002
o. Nothing in the record demonstrates that he ever sought to avoid detection or to conceal his identity. Nothing in the record reflects that he was continuing the criminal activity for which he was required to register in the first place. While we recognize that the nonviolent nature of the commitment offense, in and of itself, is not enough to bring a defendant outside the letter and spirit of the three strikes law, the circumstances surrounding this conviction should be fully considered by the court.
Therefore, we find that the court did abuse its discretion by impermissibly relying upon a misinterpretation of law and findings not supported by reliable and substantial evidence. We also find that the court failed to properly evaluate the circumstances of the current offense, as they relate to defendant's prospects of future criminality.
Because we remand for a new hearing untainted by these findings, we need not address defendant's argument that the sentence imposed by the court was a violation of cruel and unusual punishment.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the superior court for a new sentencing hearing consistent with this opinion.
We concur:
SCOTLAND, P.J.
DAVIS, J.
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.
|
|