Court Opinion

ID: 9846560
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:43:42.732523+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:38.134447
License: Public Domain

MOSK, J., J., Concurring and Dissenting.
In all respects save one, I concur in the judgment. The Court of Appeal was correct to uphold the second *317degree robbery convictions of defendants Clifton C. Wims and Wilbert Ford under Penal Code sections 211 and 212.5 and also the sentence enhancement of defendant Ford for a prior serious felony conviction under Penal Code sections 667, subdivision (a), and 1192.7, subdivision (c).
As to the sentence enhancements of defendants Wims and Ford for personal use of a deadly or dangerous weapon in the commission or attempted commission of a felony under Penal Code section 12022, subdivision (b), I dissent. The Court of Appeal was correct to set aside the underlying findings, and to vacate the resulting one-year terms, because the omission of an instruction on the elements was prejudicial error under the United States Constitution. As a general matter, I fully join in Justice Kennard’s analysis: it is irrefutable. But I cannot agree with her conclusion that the error was harmless as to defendant Ford on the ground that “overwhelming” evidence was introduced against him at trial. (See People v. Harris (1994) 9 Cal.4th 407, 440-442, 447 [37 Cal.Rptr.2d 200, 886 P.2d 1193] (conc. & dis. opn. of Mosk, J.).)
For the foregoing reasons, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal in its entirety.