Case Title: P. v. Montes

Citation: 

Docket Number: S105781M

State: california

Court: California Supreme Court

Date: 2003-09-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
1 
Filed 9/10/03 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
 
THE PEOPLE,  
) 
 
) 
S105781 
 
 
) 
 
Plaintiff and Respondent, 
) 
 
 
) 
Ct.App. 3 
 
v. 
) 
C036904 
 
 
) 
 
VICTOR RODRIGUEZ MONTES, 
) 
 
) 
Tehama County 
 
Defendant and Appellant. 
) 
Super. Ct. No. NCR52438 
___________________________________ ) 
 
THE COURT:  
MODIFICATION OF OPINION 
The opinion herein, filed on July 31, 2003, appearing at 31 Cal.4th 350, is 
modified as follows: 
On page 11, footnote 12, line 5 of the filed opinion, the word “determinate” is 
changed to read “indeterminate.” 
On page 12, line 3 of the filed opinion, the word “determinate” is changed to 
read “indeterminate.” 
On pages 13 and 14 of the filed opinion, the following language, commencing 
with “since section 2933.1, subdivision (a) mandates that a defendant convicted of a 
‘violent felony’ shall accrue no more than 15 percent of worktime credit,” and 
including the entirety of footnote 14, which appears after the word “credit,” is deleted.  
The sentence in which the deleted language appeared is modified to read as follows:  
 
 
2 
“This is so because the 15-year minimum eligible parole date set by section 
186.22(b)(5) would not impact the defendant’s sentence of 25 years to life under 
section 12022.53(d).” 
On page 14 of the filed opinion, footnote 15 is renumbered as footnote 14. 
On page 14 of the filed opinion, the fifth sentence of former footnote 15 (now 
footnote 14) reads: “While newer and more powerful sentencing laws, such as section 
190, have sapped the strength of section 186.22(b)(5), section 186.22(b)(5) still has 
vitality where, as here, the defendant is convicted of attempted murder without 
premeditation.”  This sentence is modified to delete “, as here,” and to change the 
word “without” to “with.”  The modified sentence reads as follows: “While newer and 
more powerful sentencing laws, such as section 190, have sapped the strength of 
section 186.22(b)(5), section 186.22(b)(5) still has vitality where the defendant is 
convicted of attempted murder with premeditation.” 
This modification does not affect the judgment.