Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]
San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. SC060332A
Margulies, Acting P.J.
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on April 30, 2007, be modified as follows:
1. On page 4, in the third full paragraph, fourth sentence, after the word “consent,” insert “in August 1998,” so that the sentence reads:
He was convicted of hit-and-run driving with injury and taking a vehicle without the owner’s consent in August 1998, and given a prison sentence.
2. On page 4, delete the first two sentences of the last paragraph that begins on page 4. In the new first sentence of that paragraph, substitute the word “defendant” in place of “he,” and in the next sentence, starting “In 2003,” substitute “he” for ‘defendant,” so that first two sentences read as follows:
In 2002, defendant violated parole. In 2003, he was convicted of driving without a license, not having insurance, and violating a promise to appear order.
3. On page 7, add new footnote 5 at the end of the continued paragraph from page 6:
5 By petition for rehearing, defendant contends that the court misconstrued his legal argument. According to the petition, his argument was that section 1203, subdivision (e)(4) does not apply to defendants whose prior felony convictions were sustained on the same date. If so, defendant’s briefing was less than crystal clear on this point. In any event, the argument as framed in defendant’s rehearing petition is even less persuasive than the claim that the convictions must arise from crimes committed on two occasions. Under defendant’s theory, even a string of prior felony convictions would not trigger application of section 1203, subdivision (e)(4), if he happened to have been convicted of all of the felonies on a single date. Nothing in the statutory language suggests that the Legislature intended such an illogical result.
There is no change in the judgment.
Appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied.
Dated: