P. v. Montes
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Filed 9/10/03 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, ) ) ) Plaintiff and Respondent, ) ) v. ) ) VICTOR RODRIGUEZ MONTES, ) ) Defendant and Appellant. ) ___________________________________ ) S105781 Ct.App. 3 C036904 Tehama County Super. Ct. No. NCR52438 THE COURT: MODIFICATION OF OPINION The opinion herein, filed on July 31, 2003, appearing at 31 Cal.4th 350, is modified as follows: On page 11, footnote 12, line 5 of the filed opinion, the word determinate is changed to read indeterminate. On page 12, line 3 of the filed opinion, the word determinate is changed to read indeterminate. On pages 13 and 14 of the filed opinion, the following language, commencing with since section 2933.1, subdivision (a) mandates that a defendant convicted of a violent felony shall accrue no more than 15 percent of worktime credit, and including the entirety of footnote 14, which appears after the word credit, is deleted. The sentence in which the deleted language appeared is modified to read as follows: 1 This is so because the 15-year minimum eligible parole date set by section 186.22(b)(5) would not impact the defendant s sentence of 25 years to life under section 12022.53(d). On page 14 of the filed opinion, footnote 15 is renumbered as footnote 14. On page 14 of the filed opinion, the fifth sentence of former footnote 15 (now footnote 14) reads: While newer and more powerful sentencing laws, such as section 190, have sapped the strength of section 186.22(b)(5), section 186.22(b)(5) still has vitality where, as here, the defendant is convicted of attempted murder without premeditation. This sentence is modified to delete , as here, and to change the word without to with. The modified sentence reads as follows: While newer and more powerful sentencing laws, such as section 190, have sapped the strength of section 186.22(b)(5), section 186.22(b)(5) still has vitality where the defendant is convicted of attempted murder with premeditation. This modification does not affect the judgment. 2
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.
