Citation 43 Cal. 4th 36, 178 P.3d 1100, 73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 605
People v. French
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment of conviction of criminal offenses. French, Hernandez, Mvuemba, Pardo, and Sandoval present the following issues in different factual contexts: (1) Did the trial court violate defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, as interpreted in Cunningham v. California (Jan. 22, 2007, No. 05-6551) 549 U.S. __ [2007 WL 135687], by imposing an upper term sentence based on aggravating factors not found true by the jury? (2) If so, what is the proper remedy?
Filed 4/23/08 (reposted 4/23/08 to clerically correct placement direction for first added fn.)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
S148845
v.
) Ct.App.
3
C050785
WESLEY DAVID FRENCH,
) Sacramento
County
Defendant and Appellant.
Super. Ct. No. 02F07203
MODIFICATION OF OPINION
THE COURT:
The opinion in this matter, filed March 27, 2008, is modified as follows:
On page 9, at the end of the carryover paragraph, add a footnote reading:
“To the extent that People v. Bobbit (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 445, is
inconsistent with this opinion, we disapprove it.”
On page 12, first full paragraph, at the end of the fifth sentence, add a footnote
reading:
“To the extent that People v. Hill (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1089, 1103, is
inconsistent with this opinion, we disapprove it.”
The existing footnotes in the opinion are renumbered accordingly.
This modification does not effect a change in the judgment.
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
S148845
v.
) Ct.App.
3
C050785
WESLEY DAVID FRENCH,
) Sacramento
County
Defendant and Appellant.
Super. Ct. No. 02F07203
MODIFICATION OF OPINION
THE COURT:
The opinion in this matter, filed March 27, 2008, is modified as follows:
On page 9, at the end of the carryover paragraph, add a footnote reading:
“To the extent that People v. Bobbit (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 445, is
inconsistent with this opinion, we disapprove it.”
On page 12, first full paragraph, at the end of the fifth sentence, add a footnote
reading:
“To the extent that People v. Hill (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1089, 1103, is
inconsistent with this opinion, we disapprove it.”
The existing footnotes in the opinion are renumbered accordingly.
This modification does not effect a change in the judgment.
1
Opinion Information
| Date: | Citation: | Docket Number: | Category: | Status: | Cross Referenced Cases: |
| Wed, 04/23/2008 | 43 Cal. 4th 36, 178 P.3d 1100, 73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 605 | S148845N | Review - Criminal Appeal | closed; remittitur issued | PEOPLE v. TILLEY (S159328) PEOPLE v. MARBLE (S159324) PEOPLE v. MCMILLON (S159136) PEOPLE v. ALLISON (S158278) PEOPLE v. YATES (S157935) PEOPLE v. LACERDA (S157590) PEOPLE v. AYALA (S157148) PEOPLE v. VASQUEZ (S156297) PEOPLE v. SOTO (S154293) PEOPLE v. SELITSCH (S153575) PEOPLE v. RODRIGUEZ (S153436) PEOPLE v. MAYZES (S153247) PEOPLE v. HEIMS (S152922) PEOPLE v. BAUGHMAN (S152470) PEOPLE v. JONES (S151379) PEOPLE v. COSTA (S151236) PEOPLE v. BERRY (S149842) PEOPLE v. BESWETHERICK (S149804) PEOPLE v. MYERS (S149657) PEOPLE v. PLASCENCIA (S149251) PEOPLE v. MVUEMBA (S149247) PEOPLE v. HERNANDEZ (S148974) PEOPLE v. SANDOVAL (S148917) PEOPLE v. PARDO (S148914) |
Parties
| 1 |
District Attorney Of San Diego County (Opinion Modification Requestor) Represented by Charles Edward Nickel Office of the District Attorney P.O. Box 121011 330 W. Broadway, Suite 920 San Diego, CA |
| 2 |
French, Wesley David (Defendant and Appellant) Represented by William Joseph Iii Arzbaecher Central California Appellate Program 2407 "J" Street, Suite 301 Sacramento, CA |
| 3 |
French, Wesley David (Defendant and Appellant) Represented by Central California Appellate Program 2407 "J" Street, Suite 301 2407 "J" Street, Suite 301 Sacramento, CA |
| 4 |
French, Wesley David (Defendant and Appellant) Represented by Gregory R. Marshall Attorney at Law P.O. Box 996 Palo Cedro, CA |
| 5 |
The People (Plaintiff and Respondent) Represented by Jeffrey Michael K. Laurence Office of the Attorney General 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA |
| 6 |
The People (Plaintiff and Respondent) Represented by David A. Rhodes Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA |
| Disposition | |
| Mar 27 2008 | Opinion: Reversed |
| Dockets | |
| Dec 15 2006 |
Received untimely petition for review Wesley David French, Defendant and Appellant. Gregory Marshall, CA-appointed |
| Dec 18 2006 |
Application for relief from default filed By counsel for appellant |
| Dec 20 2006 | Petition for review filed with permission |
| Dec 20 2006 | Record requested |
| Dec 21 2006 |
Received Court of Appeal record one doghouse |
| Feb 7 2007 |
Petition for review granted (criminal case) To facilitate expedited consideration and resolution of the issues presented, the court establishes the following briefing schedule: The opening brief on the merits shall be served and filed in the San Francisco office of the Supreme Court on or before February 28, 2007. Within 21 days after the opening brief on the merits is filed, the answer brief on the merits shall be served and filed in the San Francisco office of the Supreme Court. Within 7 days after the answer brief on the merits is filed, a reply brief may be served and filed in the San Francisco office of the Supreme Court. Any person or entity wishing to file an amicus curiae brief must file an application for permission to file such brief, accompanied by the proposed brief, by March 21, 2007. Any amicus curiae brief accepted for filing will be considered by the court in reviewing each of the cases presenting issues related to the effect of the decision in Cunningham v. California (Jan. 22, 2007, No. 05-6551) 549 U.S. __ [2007 WL 135687] and multiple copies of amicus briefs need not and should not be submitted in each case. Because it is important for the administration of justice that the trial courts of California be provided timely guidance, the court notes that its action in this case is not intended to dissuade the Legislature from promptly revising the existing California sentencing statutes in light of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Cunningham v. California, supra. Votes: George, C. J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Moreno and Corrigan, JJ. |
| Feb 14 2007 |
Counsel appointment order filed Upon request of appellant for appointment of counsel, the Central California Appellate Program is hereby appointed to represent appellant on the appeal now pending in this court. Appellant's brief on the merits must be served and filed on or before Febraury 28, 2007. |
| Feb 28 2007 |
Opening brief on the merits filed Wesley David French, Appellant by William J. Arzbaecher, counsel |
| Feb 28 2007 |
Request for judicial notice filed (granted case) Wesley David French, Appellant by William J. Arzbaecher, counsel |
| Mar 21 2007 |
Received: Oversized Answer Brief on the Merits The People, Respondent by Jeffrey M. Laurence, counsel |
| Mar 21 2007 |
Application to file over-length brief filed The People, Respondent by Jeffrey M. Laurence, counsel |
| Mar 21 2007 |
Answer brief on the merits filed with permission. |
| Apr 2 2007 |
Received: ovwesize reply brief on the merits, Wesley French, defendant and appellant William Arzbaecher, counsel |
| Apr 3 2007 |
Reply brief filed (case fully briefed) Filed with permission |
| Dec 4 2007 |
Case ordered on calendar Tuesday, January 8, 2008, at 9:00 a.m., in San Francisco |
| Dec 19 2007 |
Filed: Letter from counsel for appellant dated December 17, 2007, regarding additional authorities for oral argument. |
| Jan 8 2008 | Cause argued and submitted |
| Mar 26 2008 | Notice of forthcoming opinion posted |
| Mar 27 2008 |
Opinion filed: Judgment reversed and remanded to the Court of Appeal with directions. Majority Opinion by George, C.J. --------------------joined by Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Moreno, Corrigan, JJ. |
| Apr 9 2008 |
Request for modification of opinion filed District Attorney of San Diego County, non-party Bonnie Dumanis, Deputy D.A. |
| Apr 23 2008 | Opinion modified - no change in judgment |
| Apr 23 2008 |
Order filed The request for modification of the opinion is granted. George, C.J., was absent and did not participate. |
| Jun 10 2008 | Remittitur issued (criminal case) |
| Sep 17 2008 |
Compensation awarded counsel Atty Arzbaecher - Central California Appellate Program |
| Briefs | |
| Feb 28 2007 |
Opening brief on the merits filed |
| Mar 21 2007 |
Answer brief on the merits filed |
| Apr 3 2007 |
Reply brief filed (case fully briefed) |
If you'd like to submit a brief document to be included for this opinion, please submit an e-mail to the SCOCAL website.
