California v. Mullins
Annotate this CaseDefendants Karre Mullins and Arturo Russell were convicted by jury of robbery involving bank customers at ATM’s. Defendant Mullins was also convicted on a count of conspiracy to commit petty theft. Sentenced to determinate terms, defendants appealed, arguing: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support robbery convictions; (2) the existence of an identity theft statute precluded convictions for robbery because the identity theft statute was more specific; and (3) the trial court improperly used argumentative language to instruct the jury on robbery. Additionally, defendant Mullins argued: (4) the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing on the conspiracy conviction as a felony rather than as a misdemeanor. Russell argued: (5) the sentencing minute order and abstract of judgment failed to properly reflect the sentence imposed. The Court of Appeal found merit only in the last contention, affirmed the convictions, but remanded for correction of the sentencing minute order and abstract of judgment.
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.