How has section 667, subdivision (c)(2) of the California Code of Civil Procedure been interpreted?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Ibanez, C066889, Super. Ct. No. CRF093531 (Cal. App. 2013):
Defendant's argument overlooks the possibilities of the jury finding the strike allegation not true and the trial court striking the allegation in the interest of justice. (People v. Superior Court (Romero) 13 Cal.4th 497, 529-530.) Either of these possibilities would have precluded the operation of section 667, subdivision (c)(2). The trial court correctly advised defendant of the minimum punishment absent the strike allegation and the maximum punishment, which would have resulted from the strike. Assuming the court had a duty to advise defendant of the range of possible punishments,
Page 10
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
