section 667 adoption (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

section 667 adoption in California

5 California opinions name it 2 courts 1986–1998 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (6)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. Prathergreen
cal · 1990 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1993–1994
2 sentences

1993The above conclusion is apparent not only from the voters’ enactment of the ‘without limitation’ language in article I, section 28, subdivision (f), but also from the initiative’s simultaneous adoption of section 667, which imposes a mandatory five-year enhancement for each prior ‘serious felony’ conviction.” (People v. Prather, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 435 , fn. omitted, italics added.) At the threshold, I note that the majority’s notion that section 667, subdivision (b), somehow reflects an intent that prior serious felony enhancements should be imposed in lieu of, not in addition to, the one-

1993The above conclusion is apparent not only from the voters' enactment of the `without limitation' language in article I, section 28, subdivision (f), but also from the initiative's simultaneous adoption of section 667, which imposes a mandatory five-year enhancement for each prior `serious felony' conviction." ( People v. Prather, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 435, fn. omitted, italics added.) At the threshold, I note that the majority's notion that section 667, subdivision (b), somehow reflects an intent that prior serious felony enhancements should be imposed in lieu of, not in addition to, the one-

12
People v. Mustafaagreen
calctapp · 1994 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998
2 sentences

1998The Unauthorized Sentence Issue The trial court had a duty to impose sentence in. accord with the law. ( People v. Cattaneo (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1577, 1588-1589 , 266 Cal.Rptr. 710 ; People v. Floyd P. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 608, 612 , 244 Cal.ptr. 269; People v. Superior Court (Himmelsbach ) (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 524 , 537, 230 Cal.Rptr. 890 disapproved on another point in People v. Norrell (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1, 7, fn. 3 , 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 429 , 913 P.2d 458 ; People v. Santana (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 185, 191-192 , 227 Cal.Rptr. 51 .) The failure to impose or strike an enhancement is a legally un

1998The Unauthorized Sentence Issue The trial court had a duty to impose sentence in. accord with the law. ( People v. Cattaneo (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1577, 1588-1589 , 266 Cal.Rptr. 710 ; People v. Floyd P. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 608, 612 , 244 Cal.ptr. 269; People v. Superior Court (Himmelsbach ) (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 524 , 537, 230 Cal.Rptr. 890 disapproved on another point in People v. Norrell (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1, 7, fn. 3 , 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 429 , 913 P.2d 458 ; People v. Santana (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 185, 191-192 , 227 Cal.Rptr. 51 .) The failure to impose or strike an enhancement is a legally un

11
People v. Thomasgreen
cal · 1992 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998
2 sentences

1998The Unauthorized Sentence Issue The trial court had a duty to impose sentence in. accord with the law. ( People v. Cattaneo (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1577, 1588-1589 , 266 Cal.Rptr. 710 ; People v. Floyd P. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 608, 612 , 244 Cal.ptr. 269; People v. Superior Court (Himmelsbach ) (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 524 , 537, 230 Cal.Rptr. 890 disapproved on another point in People v. Norrell (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1, 7, fn. 3 , 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 429 , 913 P.2d 458 ; People v. Santana (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 185, 191-192 , 227 Cal.Rptr. 51 .) The failure to impose or strike an enhancement is a legally un

1998The Unauthorized Sentence Issue The trial court had a duty to impose sentence in. accord with the law. ( People v. Cattaneo (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1577, 1588-1589 , 266 Cal.Rptr. 710 ; People v. Floyd P. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 608, 612 , 244 Cal.ptr. 269; People v. Superior Court (Himmelsbach ) (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 524 , 537, 230 Cal.Rptr. 890 disapproved on another point in People v. Norrell (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1, 7, fn. 3 , 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 429 , 913 P.2d 458 ; People v. Santana (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 185, 191-192 , 227 Cal.Rptr. 51 .) The failure to impose or strike an enhancement is a legally un

11
People v. Norrellgreen
cal · 1996 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998
2 sentences

1998The Unauthorized Sentence Issue The trial court had a duty to impose sentence in. accord with the law. ( People v. Cattaneo (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1577, 1588-1589 , 266 Cal.Rptr. 710 ; People v. Floyd P. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 608, 612 , 244 Cal.ptr. 269; People v. Superior Court (Himmelsbach ) (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 524 , 537, 230 Cal.Rptr. 890 disapproved on another point in People v. Norrell (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1, 7, fn. 3 , 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 429 , 913 P.2d 458 ; People v. Santana (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 185, 191-192 , 227 Cal.Rptr. 51 .) The failure to impose or strike an enhancement is a legally un

1998The Unauthorized Sentence Issue The trial court had a duty to impose sentence in. accord with the law. ( People v. Cattaneo (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1577, 1588-1589 , 266 Cal.Rptr. 710 ; People v. Floyd P. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 608, 612 , 244 Cal.ptr. 269; People v. Superior Court (Himmelsbach ) (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 524 , 537, 230 Cal.Rptr. 890 disapproved on another point in People v. Norrell (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1, 7, fn. 3 , 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 429 , 913 P.2d 458 ; People v. Santana (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 185, 191-192 , 227 Cal.Rptr. 51 .) The failure to impose or strike an enhancement is a legally un

11
People v. Equartegreen
cal · 1986 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998
2 sentences

1998The Unauthorized Sentence Issue The trial court had a duty to impose sentence in. accord with the law. ( People v. Cattaneo (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1577, 1588-1589 , 266 Cal.Rptr. 710 ; People v. Floyd P. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 608, 612 , 244 Cal.ptr. 269; People v. Superior Court (Himmelsbach ) (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 524 , 537, 230 Cal.Rptr. 890 disapproved on another point in People v. Norrell (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1, 7, fn. 3 , 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 429 , 913 P.2d 458 ; People v. Santana (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 185, 191-192 , 227 Cal.Rptr. 51 .) The failure to impose or strike an enhancement is a legally un

1998The Unauthorized Sentence Issue The trial court had a duty to impose sentence in. accord with the law. ( People v. Cattaneo (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1577, 1588-1589 , 266 Cal.Rptr. 710 ; People v. Floyd P. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 608, 612 , 244 Cal.ptr. 269; People v. Superior Court (Himmelsbach ) (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 524 , 537, 230 Cal.Rptr. 890 disapproved on another point in People v. Norrell (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1, 7, fn. 3 , 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 429 , 913 P.2d 458 ; People v. Santana (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 185, 191-192 , 227 Cal.Rptr. 51 .) The failure to impose or strike an enhancement is a legally un

11
Pollack v. Department of Motor Vehiclesgreen
cal · 1985 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995
2 sentences

1995(Delaney v. Superior Court, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 800 ; Pollack v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1985) 38 Cal.3d 367, 372-373 [ 211 Cal.Rptr. 748 , 696 P.2d 141 ].) This apparent ambiguity was considered by the Legislature prior to the final adoption of section 667.

1995(Delaney v. Superior Court, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 800 ; Pollack v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1985) 38 Cal.3d 367, 372-373 [ 211 Cal.Rptr. 748 , 696 P.2d 141 ].) This apparent ambiguity was considered by the Legislature prior to the final adoption of section 667.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (12)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Irvin green
calctapp · 1991
2 sentences

1998The Unauthorized Sentence Issue The trial court had a duty to impose sentence in. accord with the law. ( People v. Cattaneo (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1577, 1588-1589 , 266 Cal.Rptr. 710 ; People v. Floyd P. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 608, 612 , 244 Cal.ptr. 269; People v. Superior Court (Himmelsbach ) (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 524 , 537, 230 Cal.Rptr. 890 disapproved on another point in People v. Norrell (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1, 7, fn. 3 , 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 429 , 913 P.2d 458 ; People v. Santana (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 185, 191-192 , 227 Cal.Rptr. 51 .) The failure to impose or strike an enhancement is a legally un

1998The Unauthorized Sentence Issue The trial court had a duty to impose sentence in. accord with the law. ( People v. Cattaneo (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1577, 1588-1589 , 266 Cal.Rptr. 710 ; People v. Floyd P. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 608, 612 , 244 Cal.ptr. 269; People v. Superior Court (Himmelsbach ) (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 524 , 537, 230 Cal.Rptr. 890 disapproved on another point in People v. Norrell (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1, 7, fn. 3 , 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 429 , 913 P.2d 458 ; People v. Santana (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 185, 191-192 , 227 Cal.Rptr. 51 .) The failure to impose or strike an enhancement is a legally un

11998–1998
People v. Superior Court (Romero) green
cal · 1996
2 sentences

1998The Unauthorized Sentence Issue The trial court had a duty to impose sentence in. accord with the law. ( People v. Cattaneo (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1577, 1588-1589 , 266 Cal.Rptr. 710 ; People v. Floyd P. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 608, 612 , 244 Cal.ptr. 269; People v. Superior Court (Himmelsbach ) (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 524 , 537, 230 Cal.Rptr. 890 disapproved on another point in People v. Norrell (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1, 7, fn. 3 , 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 429 , 913 P.2d 458 ; People v. Santana (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 185, 191-192 , 227 Cal.Rptr. 51 .) The failure to impose or strike an enhancement is a legally un

1998The Unauthorized Sentence Issue The trial court had a duty to impose sentence in. accord with the law. ( People v. Cattaneo (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1577, 1588-1589 , 266 Cal.Rptr. 710 ; People v. Floyd P. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 608, 612 , 244 Cal.ptr. 269; People v. Superior Court (Himmelsbach ) (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 524 , 537, 230 Cal.Rptr. 890 disapproved on another point in People v. Norrell (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1, 7, fn. 3 , 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 429 , 913 P.2d 458 ; People v. Santana (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 185, 191-192 , 227 Cal.Rptr. 51 .) The failure to impose or strike an enhancement is a legally un

11998–1998
People v. Cattaneo green
calctapp · 1990
2 sentences

1998The Unauthorized Sentence Issue The trial court had a duty to impose sentence in. accord with the law. ( People v. Cattaneo (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1577, 1588-1589 , 266 Cal.Rptr. 710 ; People v. Floyd P. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 608, 612 , 244 Cal.ptr. 269; People v. Superior Court (Himmelsbach ) (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 524 , 537, 230 Cal.Rptr. 890 disapproved on another point in People v. Norrell (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1, 7, fn. 3 , 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 429 , 913 P.2d 458 ; People v. Santana (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 185, 191-192 , 227 Cal.Rptr. 51 .) The failure to impose or strike an enhancement is a legally un

1998The Unauthorized Sentence Issue The trial court had a duty to impose sentence in. accord with the law. ( People v. Cattaneo (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1577, 1588-1589 , 266 Cal.Rptr. 710 ; People v. Floyd P. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 608, 612 , 244 Cal.ptr. 269; People v. Superior Court (Himmelsbach ) (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 524 , 537, 230 Cal.Rptr. 890 disapproved on another point in People v. Norrell (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1, 7, fn. 3 , 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 429 , 913 P.2d 458 ; People v. Santana (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 185, 191-192 , 227 Cal.Rptr. 51 .) The failure to impose or strike an enhancement is a legally un

11998–1998
People v. Orin green
cal · 1975
2 sentences

1998The Unauthorized Sentence Issue The trial court had a duty to impose sentence in. accord with the law. ( People v. Cattaneo (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1577, 1588-1589 , 266 Cal.Rptr. 710 ; People v. Floyd P. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 608, 612 , 244 Cal.ptr. 269; People v. Superior Court (Himmelsbach ) (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 524 , 537, 230 Cal.Rptr. 890 disapproved on another point in People v. Norrell (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1, 7, fn. 3 , 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 429 , 913 P.2d 458 ; People v. Santana (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 185, 191-192 , 227 Cal.Rptr. 51 .) The failure to impose or strike an enhancement is a legally un

1998The Unauthorized Sentence Issue The trial court had a duty to impose sentence in. accord with the law. ( People v. Cattaneo (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1577, 1588-1589 , 266 Cal.Rptr. 710 ; People v. Floyd P. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 608, 612 , 244 Cal.ptr. 269; People v. Superior Court (Himmelsbach ) (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 524 , 537, 230 Cal.Rptr. 890 disapproved on another point in People v. Norrell (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1, 7, fn. 3 , 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 429 , 913 P.2d 458 ; People v. Santana (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 185, 191-192 , 227 Cal.Rptr. 51 .) The failure to impose or strike an enhancement is a legally un

11998–1998
People v. FLOYD P. green
calctapp · 1988
1 sentence

1998The Unauthorized Sentence Issue The trial court had a duty to impose sentence in. accord with the law. ( People v. Cattaneo (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1577, 1588-1589 , 266 Cal.Rptr. 710 ; People v. Floyd P. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 608, 612 , 244 Cal.ptr. 269; People v. Superior Court (Himmelsbach ) (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 524 , 537, 230 Cal.Rptr. 890 disapproved on another point in People v. Norrell (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1, 7, fn. 3 , 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 429 , 913 P.2d 458 ; People v. Santana (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 185, 191-192 , 227 Cal.Rptr. 51 .) The failure to impose or strike an enhancement is a legally un

11998–1998
People v. Sutton green
calctapp · 1985
2 sentences

1998The Unauthorized Sentence Issue The trial court had a duty to impose sentence in. accord with the law. ( People v. Cattaneo (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1577, 1588-1589 , 266 Cal.Rptr. 710 ; People v. Floyd P. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 608, 612 , 244 Cal.ptr. 269; People v. Superior Court (Himmelsbach ) (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 524 , 537, 230 Cal.Rptr. 890 disapproved on another point in People v. Norrell (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1, 7, fn. 3 , 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 429 , 913 P.2d 458 ; People v. Santana (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 185, 191-192 , 227 Cal.Rptr. 51 .) The failure to impose or strike an enhancement is a legally un

1998The Unauthorized Sentence Issue The trial court had a duty to impose sentence in. accord with the law. ( People v. Cattaneo (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1577, 1588-1589 , 266 Cal.Rptr. 710 ; People v. Floyd P. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 608, 612 , 244 Cal.ptr. 269; People v. Superior Court (Himmelsbach ) (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 524 , 537, 230 Cal.Rptr. 890 disapproved on another point in People v. Norrell (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1, 7, fn. 3 , 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 429 , 913 P.2d 458 ; People v. Santana (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 185, 191-192 , 227 Cal.Rptr. 51 .) The failure to impose or strike an enhancement is a legally un

11998–1998
People v. Santana green
calctapp · 1986
2 sentences

1998The Unauthorized Sentence Issue The trial court had a duty to impose sentence in. accord with the law. ( People v. Cattaneo (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1577, 1588-1589 , 266 Cal.Rptr. 710 ; People v. Floyd P. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 608, 612 , 244 Cal.ptr. 269; People v. Superior Court (Himmelsbach ) (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 524 , 537, 230 Cal.Rptr. 890 disapproved on another point in People v. Norrell (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1, 7, fn. 3 , 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 429 , 913 P.2d 458 ; People v. Santana (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 185, 191-192 , 227 Cal.Rptr. 51 .) The failure to impose or strike an enhancement is a legally un

1998The Unauthorized Sentence Issue The trial court had a duty to impose sentence in. accord with the law. ( People v. Cattaneo (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1577, 1588-1589 , 266 Cal.Rptr. 710 ; People v. Floyd P. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 608, 612 , 244 Cal.ptr. 269; People v. Superior Court (Himmelsbach ) (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 524 , 537, 230 Cal.Rptr. 890 disapproved on another point in People v. Norrell (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1, 7, fn. 3 , 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 429 , 913 P.2d 458 ; People v. Santana (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 185, 191-192 , 227 Cal.Rptr. 51 .) The failure to impose or strike an enhancement is a legally un

11998–1998
People v. Superior Court red
calctapp · 1986
2 sentences

1998The Unauthorized Sentence Issue The trial court had a duty to impose sentence in. accord with the law. ( People v. Cattaneo (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1577, 1588-1589 , 266 Cal.Rptr. 710 ; People v. Floyd P. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 608, 612 , 244 Cal.ptr. 269; People v. Superior Court (Himmelsbach ) (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 524 , 537, 230 Cal.Rptr. 890 disapproved on another point in People v. Norrell (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1, 7, fn. 3 , 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 429 , 913 P.2d 458 ; People v. Santana (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 185, 191-192 , 227 Cal.Rptr. 51 .) The failure to impose or strike an enhancement is a legally un

1998The Unauthorized Sentence Issue The trial court had a duty to impose sentence in. accord with the law. ( People v. Cattaneo (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1577, 1588-1589 , 266 Cal.Rptr. 710 ; People v. Floyd P. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 608, 612 , 244 Cal.ptr. 269; People v. Superior Court (Himmelsbach ) (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 524 , 537, 230 Cal.Rptr. 890 disapproved on another point in People v. Norrell (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1, 7, fn. 3 , 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 429 , 913 P.2d 458 ; People v. Santana (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 185, 191-192 , 227 Cal.Rptr. 51 .) The failure to impose or strike an enhancement is a legally un

11998–1998
Delaney v. Superior Court green
cal · 1990
1 sentence

1995(Delaney v. Superior Court, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 800 ; Pollack v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1985) 38 Cal.3d 367, 372-373 [ 211 Cal.Rptr. 748 , 696 P.2d 141 ].) This apparent ambiguity was considered by the Legislature prior to the final adoption of section 667.

11995–1995
People v. Williams red
cal · 1981
2 sentences

1986Although section 667 does contain mandatory language— ‘[a]ny person convicted of a serious felony . . . shall receive ... a five-year enhancement for each such prior conviction’—[People v.] Williams [(1981) 30 Cal.3d 470 ( 179 Cal.Rptr. 443 , 637 P.2d 1029 )] and [People v.] Burke [(1956) 47 Cal.2d 45 ( 301 P.2d 241 )] plainly hold that such language alone is not sufficient to eliminate a trial court’s power to strike.” (People v. Fritz, supra, 40 Cal.3d at pp. 230-231.) Because the record revealed that the trial court erroneously believed it had no discretion to strike the prior, the Californ

1986Although section 667 does contain mandatory language— ‘[a]ny person convicted of a serious felony . . . shall receive ... a five-year enhancement for each such prior conviction’—[People v.] Williams [(1981) 30 Cal.3d 470 ( 179 Cal.Rptr. 443 , 637 P.2d 1029 )] and [People v.] Burke [(1956) 47 Cal.2d 45 ( 301 P.2d 241 )] plainly hold that such language alone is not sufficient to eliminate a trial court’s power to strike.” (People v. Fritz, supra, 40 Cal.3d at pp. 230-231.) Because the record revealed that the trial court erroneously believed it had no discretion to strike the prior, the Californ

11986–1986
People v. Fritz green
cal · 1985
2 sentences

1986(People v. Fritz (1985) 40 Cal.3d 227 [ 219 Cal.Rptr. 460 , 707 P.2d 833 ].) Specifically addressing the argument that the adoption of Penal Code section 667 and article I, section 28, subdivision (f) of the Constitution abrogated the trial court’s Penal Code section 1385 power to strike a serious felony, the Supreme Court in Fritz stated: “Neither section, *1032 however, contains any express language indicating that it was intended to eliminate a trial court’s section 1385 power with respect to the serious felony enhancement adopted in section 667, and nothing in the ballot analysis or argume

1986(People v. Fritz (1985) 40 Cal.3d 227 [ 219 Cal.Rptr. 460 , 707 P.2d 833 ].) Specifically addressing the argument that the adoption of Penal Code section 667 and article I, section 28, subdivision (f) of the Constitution abrogated the trial court’s Penal Code section 1385 power to strike a serious felony, the Supreme Court in Fritz stated: “Neither section, *1032 however, contains any express language indicating that it was intended to eliminate a trial court’s section 1385 power with respect to the serious felony enhancement adopted in section 667, and nothing in the ballot analysis or argume

11986–1986
People v. Burke red
cal · 1956
2 sentences

1986Although section 667 does contain mandatory language— ‘[a]ny person convicted of a serious felony . . . shall receive ... a five-year enhancement for each such prior conviction’—[People v.] Williams [(1981) 30 Cal.3d 470 ( 179 Cal.Rptr. 443 , 637 P.2d 1029 )] and [People v.] Burke [(1956) 47 Cal.2d 45 ( 301 P.2d 241 )] plainly hold that such language alone is not sufficient to eliminate a trial court’s power to strike.” (People v. Fritz, supra, 40 Cal.3d at pp. 230-231.) Because the record revealed that the trial court erroneously believed it had no discretion to strike the prior, the Californ

1986Although section 667 does contain mandatory language— ‘[a]ny person convicted of a serious felony . . . shall receive ... a five-year enhancement for each such prior conviction’—[People v.] Williams [(1981) 30 Cal.3d 470 ( 179 Cal.Rptr. 443 , 637 P.2d 1029 )] and [People v.] Burke [(1956) 47 Cal.2d 45 ( 301 P.2d 241 )] plainly hold that such language alone is not sufficient to eliminate a trial court’s power to strike.” (People v. Fritz, supra, 40 Cal.3d at pp. 230-231.) Because the record revealed that the trial court erroneously believed it had no discretion to strike the prior, the Californ

11986–1986

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CA § Cal. Penal Code § 667 (5)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check