 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Cruz6/13/2002
among levels of fault and is irrationally more severe than enhancements for other types of weapons. As they concede, however, another court has rejected these arguments. The Supreme Court denied review in both cases, and we do not find any cogent reason to depart from their analyses. We thus reject the argument.
D.
The abstracts of judgment reflect that the trial court imposed on each defendant the obligation to pay $51,590 in restitution to the victims and $12,286.62 in reimbursement to the Victims of Violent Crimes Program. The defendants contend (and the Attorney General does not dispute) that these figures are the total amount due to the victims and the state program, and thus the abstracts of judgment should reflect explicitly that these are joint and several obligations. We find that this was the trial court's intent and will order the abstract of judgment to reflect this.
E.
The trial court imposed a fine payable in the event of the revocation of the defendants' parole. Since section 1202.45 does not apply where some of the convictions provide for parole but others do not, we cannot conceive of any rational reason for counsel's ineffectiveness in failing to object in the trial court. We shall strike the fines.
Disposition
The restitution and reimbursement orders are amended to make explicit the joint and several obligation of the defendants. The orders imposing a fine on revocation of parole are vacated. The judgment is otherwise affirmed. The trial court shall prepare an amended abstract of judgment and forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections.
We concur:
HULL, J.
KOLKEY, 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.
|
|