Legal Opinion

People v. Nelums

California Supreme Court

Decided May 13, 1982No. Crim. 22214PublishedCited by 40 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

RICHARDSON, J.

Is a person “armed with a firearm” when the weapon is inoperable? We hold that he is for purposes of sentencing enhancement.

Defendant Roger Nelums appeals from a judgment of conviction following his plea of guilty to three counts of robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211; further statutory references are to this code.) The trial court found that he was armed with a firearm during the commission of one of the robberies (§ 12022, subd. (a)). Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred both in excluding evidence that the firearm was inoperable and in imposing the…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. People v. WoodardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
  2. People v. HaydenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1973
  3. People v. JacksonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
  4. People v. FavaloraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
  5. People v. JacksonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979

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

3Cited by40 opinions

  1. People v. WolcottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1983
  2. People v. BlandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
  3. People v. MasbruchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
  4. People v. BrimmerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
  5. People v. HaysCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983

35 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