Legal Opinion

People v. Ledesma

California Supreme Court

Decided July 31, 1997No. S054240PublishedCited by 85 opinions

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

  1. People v. HarveyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
  2. People v. FordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
  3. People v. Christian S.California Supreme Court · 1994
  4. People v. PietersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
  5. People v. FierroCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991

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

3Cited by85 opinions

  1. Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Coalition of Concerned Communities, Inc. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
  3. People v. MendozaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
  4. Horwich v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Scott Co. of California v. Blount, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1999

80 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