Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

People v. Magill

California Supreme Court

Decided April 3, 1986No. Crim. 24635PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

GRODIN, J.

We granted review to determine whether, under Penal Code section 1170.1, subdivision (g), 1 the sentence of a defendant against whom an enhancement is imposed pursuant to section 12022.6 is unlimited by the double-base term rule (People v. Wright (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 811, 813 [154 Cal.Rptr. 926]; People v. McClelland (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 503, 508 [186 Cal.Rptr. 365]) or whether the sentence is limited to twice the base term plus the enhancement (People v. Sequeira (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 1, 20-21 [179 Cal.Rptr. 249]). We conclude section 1170.1, subdivision (g) completely…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. People v. DanielsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Smith v. AndersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
  3. People v. SequeiraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981
  4. People v. WrightCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
  5. People v. McClellandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. People v. PietersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
  2. People v. WebbCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
  3. People v. WimberlyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
  4. Holmes v. JonesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
  5. People v. GarciaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989

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

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API