This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.


Modification: People v. Case

Ruling by

Leondra R. Kruger

Lower Court

Sacramento County Superior Court

Lower Court Judge

Goodwin H. Liu
Restitution fine reduced by amount of requisite direct victim restitution payment pursuant to Government Code former Section 13967(c), which was in effect at time of victim's crimes.



Court

CASC

Cite as

2018 DJDAR 8220

Published

Aug. 17, 2018

Filing Date

Aug. 15, 2018

Opinion Type

Modification

Disposition Type

Affirmed as Modified


 

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CHARLES EDWARD CASE,

Defendant and Appellant.

 

No. S057156

Sacramento County

Super. Ct. No. 93F05175

California Supreme Court

Filed Aug. 15, 2018

 

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND

DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING

 

THE COURT:

 

The opinion in this matter filed May 31, 2018, and appearing at 5 Cal.5th 1, is modified as follows:

 

The final sentence at the end of the first paragraph on page 45 --- which currently states, "In any event, the argument fails on its merits." --- is deleted. The following sentence is inserted to start the subsequent paragraph on page 45:

 

To the extent defendant raises a challenge on an issue other than credibility, the argument fails on its merits.

 

In the last sentence of the first full paragraph on page 45, the word "convincingly" is inserted between the words "not" and "explain." The sentence now reads:

 

Defendant says that "[d]emonstrating that Reed did not know about the inconsistencies between Langford's and Webster's testimony was important to appellant's defense that Webster framed appellant," but does not convincingly explain why that is so.

 

The modification does not affect the judgment.

 

The petition for rehearing is denied.

 

 

#271884

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390