People v. Frutoz
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon (count 1), possession of a firearm by a felon (count 2), and misdemeanor resisting or obstructing a peace officer (count 3). As to count 2, the jury additionally found defendant was personally armed with a firearm during commission of the offense. Defendant admitted to two prior serious felony convictions that were also strikes under Penal Code 667, subds (a)(1)-(b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), and serving five prior prison terms. On appeal, defendant argues that the finding with respect to count 2, that he was armed with a firearm pursuant to section 1170.12, subdivision (c)(2)(C)(iii), must be stricken as an illegal sentence, because it is inapplicable to a conviction under section 29800, subdivision (a)(1). The court affirmed the judgment, rejecting defendant's claim that possession of a firearm by a felon is not inherently dangerous, and concluding that voters intended the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, Pen. Code, 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(A), to subject a third strike offender to an indeterminate life term.
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More › You already receive new opinion summaries from California Court of Appeal. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.