Legal Opinion

People v. Tardy

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 15, 2003No. B163585PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

PERLUSS, P. J.

Otha L. Tardy appeals the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of petty theft and the court found true that he had suffered a prior theft conviction within the meaning of Penal Code section 666. Tardy claims imposition of a felony sentence under section 666 violates due process because, although the accusatory pleading charged him with robbery and alleged prior qualifying convictions, it did not specifically charge him with the separate crime of petty theft with a prior conviction. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

An amended information charged Tardy with…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. People v. MurphyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
  2. People v. WebsterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
  3. People v. KingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
  4. People v. OrtegaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
  5. People v. GuiuanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. People v. HollieCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  2. People v. FialhoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
  3. People v. DixonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
  4. People v. PeytonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
  5. People v. SokCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010

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

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

Powered by the Exa API