California v. Hubbard
Annotate this CaseDefendant Sidney Hubbard received a third strike sentence in 1996, based on the commission of attempted robbery, and reckless evasion of a police pursuit, with enhancements for five prior strikes, and two prior prison terms. The Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction in 1999. He successfully petitioned for resentencing under Proposition 36, however he appealed that new sentence, arguing the sentencing court improperly refused to consider all aspects of his sentence, including exercising discretion under Penal Code section 1385. Furthermore, Defendant argued the Court should remand his case for further consideration of concurrent sentences and to apply Penal Code section 654. The Court agreed with defendant, vacated his sentence, and remanded to the sentencing court for consideration of a new sentence.
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.