California v. Tilley
Annotate this CaseDefendent Ernest Tilley pled no contest to robbery and admitted a prior strike conviction, for which he was sentenced to the middle term, doubled pursuant to the strike. Tilley appealed, arguing: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the middle term, because the court did not consider defendant’s mental health problems in accordance with Penal Code section 1170(b)(6); (2) if that claim was forfeited, he received ineffective assistance of counsel; and (3) the judgment had to be modified, as the trial court improperly advised defendant as to the parole consequences of his plea. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed the 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.