People v. Ledesma
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BROWN, J.
Is imposition of a sentencing enhancement for personal use of a firearm discretionary or mandatory when the underlying offense is assault *93with a firearm? (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2).)1 If discretionary, as the Court of Appeal held in People v. Campbell (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1666 [48 Cal.Rptr.2d 340], the trial court must state its reason for imposing any additional term. (§ 1170, subd. (c).) If mandatory, as the Court of Appeal held in People v. Hill (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1574 [255 Cal.Rptr. 772], imposition of the midterm is not a sentencing choice and requires no…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- People v. HarveyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- People v. FordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
- People v. Christian S.California Supreme Court · 1994
- People v. PietersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
- People v. FierroCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by85 opinions
- Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2002
- Coalition of Concerned Communities, Inc. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
- People v. MendozaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
- Horwich v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
- Scott Co. of California v. Blount, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1999
80 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.