The People of the State of California v. Constantino Rufus Hall

San Bernardino, California criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with robbery and simple assault.



In 2023, Hall and Backscheider assaulted and robbed a 60-year-old man. They attacked the victim for approximately two minutes before stealing his phones. The victim was left bleeding from the mouth and nose, with four broken teeth. Bystanders called police and an ambulance. Soon after, law enforcement arrived. After arriving at the scene, a police officer observed that the victim was having trouble breathing, forming sentences, and recalling events. Appellants were quickly apprehended. Following a joint trial, the jury convicted each defendant of one count of robbery (§ 211) and one count of misdemeanor assault (§ 240).



The court held bifurcated proceedings on each defendant's prior convictions. As to Backscheider, the court found that in 2018 he had been convicted of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court found the conviction qualified both as a strike prior (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and a serious felony prior (§ 667, subd. (a)(1).) The court also found proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to four aggravating factors. As to Hall, the court found true all prior conviction allegations, including the allegation that he had been convicted of robbery in 1993. Again, the trial court found the conviction qualified both as a strike prior (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and a serious felony prior (§ 667, subd. (a)(1).) Further, the trial court found proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to the same four aggravating factors as Backscheider.



* * *



Legal issue Did the trial court abuse its discretion in sentencing by failing to apply proper factors or dismiss prior felony enhancements for the defendants?



Key Phrases - Serious felony prior - Abuse of discretion - Romero motion - Section 1385 subdivisions - Uniformity in sentencing

Affirmed