What are the consequences of a jury finding a defendant guilty of robbery while personally using a firearm?

A jury found defendant guilty of second degree robbery (here, robbery of a cigarette store) while personally using a firearm and found he had four strike priors/serious felony convictions from Nevada. (See People v. Culverson (Dec. 9, 2016, C080901) [nonpub. opn.] (Culverson I).) Defendant appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support each of the four strike priors/serious felony convictions. We agreed three lacked sufficient evidentiary support, reversing those strike priors/serious felony convictions and striking the associated five-year enhancements imposed for each. We, however, gave the People the opportunity to retry them.

The People elected to retry one strike prior/serious felony conviction we reversed in Culverson I -- a 2000 Nevada conviction for robbery with use of a deadly weapon. (See People v. Culverson (July 3, 2018, C084286) [nonpub. opn.] (Culverson II).) A jury found true the allegations that defendant had been convicted of robbery with a deadly weapon in Nevada in 2000 and that the prior conviction met the statutory elements for robbery under California law. We reversed the true finding that defendant's Nevada conviction was a serious felony within the meaning of the three strikes law, struck the associated five-year sentence enhancement, and remanded for resentencing. We also remanded for the trial court to consider exercising its discretion to strike the firearm enhancement under section 12022.53, as provided in S.B. 620.

Page 3