How has the court interpreted the enhanced sentence provision of section 12022 of the California Penal Code for a man who supplied a handgun to a woman for purposes of solicitation?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Heston, 1 Cal.App.4th 471, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 26 (Cal. App. 1991):
"Appellant was not armed with the gun as a 'means of offense or defense' at the time of the solicitation. As the trial court noted, the increased risk of harm was to the projected victim of the crime which was being solicited and not to any person present at the time the crime of solicitation was being committed. That potential harm is too remote to call into play the enhanced sentence provisions of Penal Code section 12022, subdivision (a)." (People v. Miley, supra, 158 Cal.App.3d at p. 32, 204 Cal.Rptr. 347, emphasis original.)
Page 30
Noting the increased culpability for having supplied the gun, the reviewing court held:
"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.
