Supreme Court of California

The doctrine of sentencing entrapment is rejected as inconsistent with California entrapment doctrine. Given that the conduct of the undercover officer was far from outrageous, there is no need here to decide whether the doctrine of sentencing manipulation should be adopted in California.

Appellate Information

• Decided 12/22/2003
• Published 12/22/2003

Judges

•  BROWN, J.

Court

• Supreme Court of California

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
•  Phillip I. Bronson, under appointment by the Supreme Court, Encino, for Defendant and Appellant Edaleene Sherrie Smith., Maxine Weksler, under appointment by the Supreme Court, Agoura Hills, for Defendant and Appellant Waymond Thomas., Stephen Gilbert, under appointment by the Supreme Court, and William Flenniken, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Obed Gonzalez., Charles D. Weisselberg and John T. Philipsborn, San Francisco, for California Attorneys for Criminal Justice as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Appellants., Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Manuel Medeiros, State Solicitor General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Jaime L. Fuster, Donald De Nicola and Michael C. Keller, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.