Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

People v. Culpepper

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 3, 1994No. E013077PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

HOLLENHORST, J.

Defendant’s sole argument on appeal is that the abstract of judgment must be modified to correctly reflect presentence custody.

Factual and Procedural Background

Defendant pled guilty to one count of kidnapping his ex-wife (Pen. Code, § 207, subd. (a)), 1 during which he intentionally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7), one count of assaulting his ex-wife with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), and one count of theft of his ex-wife’s automobile (Veh. Code, § 10851), and he admitted a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667) and a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  2. People v. FaresCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
  3. People v. BrowningCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
  4. People v. LittleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. People v. AcostaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
  2. People v. MezaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
  3. People v. SalazarCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
  4. People v. WriceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
  5. People v. RobinsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API