Legal Opinion · Concurrence

People v. Gulbrandsen

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 2, 1989No. C001070Published

1ConcurrenceSims, J.

I concur in the majority opinion except for its analysis of why a consecutive sentence for the escape conviction was not mandated. I reach the same conclusion by different reasoning.

The majority conclude a mandatory consecutive sentence cannot be reconciled with the 1985 amendment to Penal Code section 4532. (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 1555-1556; further statutory references are to the Penal Code.) However, the amendment was not in place when defendant committed his crime in 1984.

I think we must first ascertain the meaning of the statute the defendant violated. The 1985 amendment would be…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. People v. AndersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
  2. People v. CaudilloCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
  3. Long Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Long BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  4. In Re FinkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
  5. People v. VeaseyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979

2 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