enhancement instruction in California

2021(CALCRIM No. 1804, see People v. Martinez (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 686, 693 [enhancement based on Corporations Code violations and grand theft and conspiracy]; People v. Nilsson (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1, 16 [applying enhancement to grand theft]; People v. Mozes (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1129 [defendant pled guilty to multiple counts of theft by false pretenses and admitted enhancement based on that charge]; People v. Frederick (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 400, 404 [enhancement based on grand theft and securities fraud counts].) Finally, in an argument similar to his prior assertion that the conspira

2021(CALCRIM No. 1804, see People v. Martinez (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 686, 693 [enhancement based on Corporations Code violations and grand theft and conspiracy]; People v. Nilsson (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1, 16 [applying enhancement to grand theft]; People v. Mozes (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1129 [defendant pled guilty to multiple counts of theft by false pretenses and admitted enhancement based on that charge]; People v. Frederick (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 400, 404 [enhancement based on grand theft and securities fraud counts].) Finally, in an argument similar to his prior assertion that the conspira

2021(CALCRIM No. 1804, see People v. Martinez (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 686, 693 [enhancement based on Corporations Code violations and grand theft and conspiracy]; People v. Nilsson (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1, 16 [applying enhancement to grand theft]; People v. Mozes (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1129 [defendant pled guilty to multiple counts of theft by false pretenses and admitted enhancement based on that charge]; People v. Frederick (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 400, 404 [enhancement based on grand theft and securities fraud counts].) Finally, in an argument similar to his prior assertion that the conspira

2021(CALCRIM No. 1804, see People v. Martinez (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 686, 693 [enhancement based on Corporations Code violations and grand theft and conspiracy]; People v. Nilsson (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1, 16 [applying enhancement to grand theft]; People v. Mozes (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1129 [defendant pled guilty to multiple counts of theft by false pretenses and admitted enhancement based on that charge]; People v. Frederick (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 400, 404 [enhancement based on grand theft and securities fraud counts].) Finally, in an argument similar to his prior assertion that the conspira

2021(CALCRIM No. 1804, see People v. Martinez (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 686, 693 [enhancement based on Corporations Code violations and grand theft and conspiracy]; People v. Nilsson (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1, 16 [applying enhancement to grand theft]; People v. Mozes (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1129 [defendant pled guilty to multiple counts of theft by false pretenses and admitted enhancement based on that charge]; People v. Frederick (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 400, 404 [enhancement based on grand theft and securities fraud counts].) Finally, in an argument similar to his prior assertion that the conspira

2021(CALCRIM No. 1804, see People v. Martinez (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 686, 693 [enhancement based on Corporations Code violations and grand theft and conspiracy]; People v. Nilsson (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1, 16 [applying enhancement to grand theft]; People v. Mozes (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1129 [defendant pled guilty to multiple counts of theft by false pretenses and admitted enhancement based on that charge]; People v. Frederick (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 400, 404 [enhancement based on grand theft and securities fraud counts].) Finally, in an argument similar to his prior assertion that the conspira

2021(CALCRIM No. 1804, see People v. Martinez (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 686, 693 [enhancement based on Corporations Code violations and grand theft and conspiracy]; People v. Nilsson (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1, 16 [applying enhancement to grand theft]; People v. Mozes (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1129 [defendant pled guilty to multiple counts of theft by false pretenses and admitted enhancement based on that charge]; People v. Frederick (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 400, 404 [enhancement based on grand theft and securities fraud counts].) Finally, in an argument similar to his prior assertion that the conspira

2021(CALCRIM No. 1804, see People v. Martinez (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 686, 693 [enhancement based on Corporations Code violations and grand theft and conspiracy]; People v. Nilsson (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1, 16 [applying enhancement to grand theft]; People v. Mozes (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1129 [defendant pled guilty to multiple counts of theft by false pretenses and admitted enhancement based on that charge]; People v. Frederick (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 400, 404 [enhancement based on grand theft and securities fraud counts].) Finally, in an argument similar to his prior assertion that the conspira

2009Because it merely lists the enhancement factors used, without a more complete explanation of their applicability in this context, the order is subject to question regarding the factual basis of the exercise of discretion made.” (Ramos v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 615, 624 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 388 ].) 15 Similarly, section 1033.5, subdivision (c)(5) provides for different methods for fixing attorney fees recoverable pursuant to a contract, “either upon a noticed motion or upon entry of a default judgment, unless otherwise provided by stipulation of the parties.” 16 The Cogg

2009Because it merely lists the enhancement factors used, without a more complete explanation of their applicability in this context, the order is subject to question regarding the factual basis of the exercise of discretion made.” (Ramos v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 615, 624 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 388 ].) 15 Similarly, section 1033.5, subdivision (c)(5) provides for different methods for fixing attorney fees recoverable pursuant to a contract, “either upon a noticed motion or upon entry of a default judgment, unless otherwise provided by stipulation of the parties.” 16 The Cogg

2026(Walker, supra, 16 Cal.5th at p. 1038.) Since the court refused to dismiss the defendant’s enhancement under a presumption that favored dismissal and could only be overcome by a finding that dismissal would endanger public safety, Walker did not find remand necessary under their now “less restrictive understanding of a trial court’s authority pursuant to section 1385, subdivision (c)(2).” (Walker, at p. 1038.) Under Walker’s less restrictive understanding of a trial court’s discretion under section 1385, subdivision (c)(2), removing the presumption and calling the court to give great weight to

2026(Golde, supra, 163 Cal.App.4th at p. 121 .) Section 12022.5, subdivision (a) provides that “any person who personally uses a firearm in the commission of a felony or attempted felony shall be punished by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for 3, 4, or 10 years, unless use of a firearm is an element of that offense.” (Italics added; see People v. Rodriguez (2009) 47 Cal.4th 501, 505 (Rodriguez) [referring to the italicized clause as an “exemption” to the enhancement requirement].) However, subdivision (d) of section 12022.5 states: “Notwithstanding the limita

2026(Golde, supra, 163 Cal.App.4th at p. 121 .) Section 12022.5, subdivision (a) provides that “any person who personally uses a firearm in the commission of a felony or attempted felony shall be punished by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for 3, 4, or 10 years, unless use of a firearm is an element of that offense.” (Italics added; see People v. Rodriguez (2009) 47 Cal.4th 501, 505 (Rodriguez) [referring to the italicized clause as an “exemption” to the enhancement requirement].) However, subdivision (d) of section 12022.5 states: “Notwithstanding the limita

2024(People v. Langston (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1237, 1241 [“Once the prior prison term is found true within the meaning of section 667.5(b), the trial court may not stay the one-year enhancement, which is mandatory unless stricken.”].) However, the unauthorized nature of defendant’s sentence does not affect the analysis of whether the trial court was required to conduct a full resentencing under section 1172.75.

2023(See Perdue[, supra,] 559 U.S. [at p.] 55[3] (‘We have also held that the quality of an attorney’s performance generally should not be used to adjust the lodestar “[b]ecause considerations concerning the quality of a prevailing party’s counsel’s representation normally are reflected in the reasonable hourly rate.”[’]); [ibid.] (‘[T]he . . . complexity of a case generally may not be used as a ground for an enhancement because these factors “presumably [are] fully reflected in the number of billable hours recorded by counsel.”[’]).” We read the ruling on hourly rates to mean the court adjusted n

2023(See Perdue[, supra,] 559 U.S. [at p.] 55[3] (‘We have also held that the quality of an attorney’s performance generally should not be used to adjust the lodestar “[b]ecause considerations concerning the quality of a prevailing party’s counsel’s representation normally are reflected in the reasonable hourly rate.”[’]); [ibid.] (‘[T]he . . . complexity of a case generally may not be used as a ground for an enhancement because these factors “presumably [are] fully reflected in the number of billable hours recorded by counsel.”[’]).” We read the ruling on hourly rates to mean the court adjusted n

2016(See People v. Cole (1982) 31 Cal.3d 568, 579 [as used in the § 12022.7 enhancement, “[p]ersonally” was intended to “limit the category of persons subject to the enhancement to those who directly perform the act that causes the physical injury to the victim”].) Thus, because the enhancement instruction contained the word “personally,” an additional instruction stating that the proximate causation language in the corporal injury count instruction did not apply to the enhancement would be superfluous and therefore unnecessary.

2016(See People v. Cole (1982) 31 Cal.3d 568, 579 [as used in the § 12022.7 enhancement, “[p]ersonally” was intended to “limit the category of persons subject to the enhancement to those who directly perform the act that causes the physical injury to the victim”].) Thus, because the enhancement instruction contained the word “personally,” an additional instruction stating that the proximate causation language in the corporal injury count instruction did not apply to the enhancement would be superfluous and therefore unnecessary.

2016Langston is inapposite as it did not concern the proper treatment of an enhancement where both enhancements arise from the same offense. "[C]ases are not authority for propositions not considered." (People v. Brown (2012) 54 Cal.4th 314, 330 .) "Langston never mentioned rule 4.447, and the authority cited by Langston on the point involved discretionary determinations to not impose an enhancement, and therefore did not implicate the ability to stay an enhancement under rule 4.447." (People v. Brewer (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 98, 106, fn. 9 .) Thus, the trial court committed no error in staying the

1994(People v. Savala [(1983)] 147 Cal.App.3d [63, 66] [ 195 Cal.Rptr. 193 ].) Here, the record contains numerous factors which support the [imposition] of the $5,000 fine and there is no indication that the increase was the result of the court punishing appellant for exercising his constitutional rights to appeal.” 5 In People v. Savala (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 63, 67-68 [ 195 Cal.Rptr. 193 ], the question was, when a defendant’s appeal is successful as to an enhancement upon which he was sentenced, may the trial court reconsider the *1784 sentences on other counts and enhancements in light of the m

1994(People v. Savala [(1983)] 147 Cal.App.3d [63, 66] [ 195 Cal.Rptr. 193 ].) Here, the record contains numerous factors which support the [imposition] of the $5,000 fine and there is no indication that the increase was the result of the court punishing appellant for exercising his constitutional rights to appeal.” 5 In People v. Savala (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 63, 67-68 [ 195 Cal.Rptr. 193 ], the question was, when a defendant’s appeal is successful as to an enhancement upon which he was sentenced, may the trial court reconsider the *1784 sentences on other counts and enhancements in light of the m