California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Prieto, 12 Cal.App.4th 295, 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 921 (Cal. App. 1992):
Third, respondent relies on People v. Tanner (1979) 24 Cal.3d 514, 156 Cal.Rptr. 450, 596 P.2d 328, which held a trial court does not possess the authority under section 1385 to reject a mandatory probation ineligibility finding under section 1203.06 and grant probation to a defendant who used [12 Cal.App.4th 299] a firearm in the commission of a felony. 6 But, in order for Tanner to be dispositive in this case, the probation ineligibility finding under section 1203.06 would have to be identical to section 12022.5's sentence enhancement for using a firearm. Clearly, however, they are not the same. Though the evidence necessary to sustain each is the same, each is a totally distinct legal entity. The first makes a defendant ineligible for probation but the second enhances his sentence.
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.