Court Opinion

ID: 9721168
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:50:11.913428+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:23.775813
License: Public Domain

GATES, J., Dissenting.
I am aware that the concurring opinion in People v. Jackson (1985) 37 Cal.3d 826 [210 Cal.Rptr. 623, 694 P.2d 736], expressed reservations regarding the holding in People v. Crowson (1983) 33 Cal.3d 623, 632-635 [190 Cal.Rptr. 165, 660 P.2d 389], and the hope that *709some day that decision might be reconsidered. Perhaps the instant appeal will provide a suitable vehicle for such a review.
However, unless and until our highest court does, in fact, elect to reexamine, and subsequently to reject, the reasoning so explicitly and so emphatically announced in both Jackson and Crowson, I would follow the clearly defined course they have dictated, albeit in dicta, and eliminate the Penal Code section 667 enhancement from the instant judgment.
A petition for a rehearing was denied February 26, 1985, and appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied May 23, 1985.