Legal Opinion

People v. Espinoza

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 9, 1983No. Crim. 6204PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

THE COURT. *

Appellant was convicted after jury trial of robbery with the use of a deadly weapon and while armed with a firearm, and assault with a deadly weapon. He received the middle base term plus two weapons enhancements on the robbery, and a concurrent term on the assault.

Appellant contends the trial court improperly imposed two weapons enhancements for the same robbery and prejudicially erred in failing to instruct, sua sponte, that the jury had to agree on which act the assault with a deadly weapon was based. Respondent agrees with the former contention but disputes the latter.…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. In re CulbrethCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  2. People v. DiedrichCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
  3. People v. McNeillCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980
  4. People v. MaddenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981
  5. People v. EdwardsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. People v. DelettoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
  2. People v. RamirezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987
  3. People v. SavalaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
  4. People v. BurnsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
  5. People v. CraigCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998

10 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