Court Opinion

ID: 9726580
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 12:58:09.826144+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:28.749686
License: Public Domain

PUGLIA, P. J.
I concur in the result.
Paragraph (c), subdivision (23) of Penal Code section 1192.7 is virtually identical to the operative language of paragraph (b) of Penal Code section *54512022. It is highly unlikely that this precise congruence is coincidental. Rather it manifests an intended interrelationship between the two provisions. Since in appropriate cases personal use of a deadly or dangerous weapon may be charged as an enhancement under section 12022, subdivision (b), the related provision of section 1192.7 may not later be invoked unless such a charge has been made and proven. No such enhancement was charged in conjunction with defendant’s 1976 conviction of felony assault nor could it have been because the prior crime occurred before the enactment of section 12022, subdivision (b), which in any event is facially inapplicable to charges of assault with a deadly weapon.
The petitions of both parties for a hearing by the Supreme Court were denied January 17, 1985. Lucas, J., was of the opinion that the hearing should be granted.