REVIEW THE RECORDS
Read the Documents in Their Proper Order
Justin Montgomery’s court records are presented in chronological order—from the charges filed against him to the judgment sent to the prison system.
Each document serves a different purpose. When read together, they raise important questions about whether the count numbers, Penal Code sections, jury findings, enhancements, and sentence were recorded consistently.
Information of Charges
What the Prosecution Alleged
The Amended Information lists the charges and special allegations filed against Justin before the jury made any findings.
It identifies Count 1 as attempted murder under Penal Code sections 664/187(a). It identifies Count 7 as assault with a semiautomatic firearm under section 245(b) and Count 8 as shooting at an occupied motor vehicle under section 246.
The charges and enhancements in this document were allegations that still had to be admitted, proven, or found true before they could be used at sentencing.
Important point: The charging document identifies Count 1 as attempted murder and Count 8 as a separate section 246 offense.
Jury Verdict Forms
What the Jury Actually Decided
The verdict forms contain the jury’s written findings.
For Count 1, the jury found Justin guilty of attempted murder under sections 664/187(a), but specifically found that willfulness, deliberation, and premeditation were not true.
For Count 7, the jury found him guilty of assault with a semiautomatic firearm under section 245(b).
For Count 8, the jury found him guilty of shooting at an occupied motor vehicle under section 246.
The verdict forms establish that Count 1 and Count 8 were separate offenses.
Important point: The jury rejected premeditation on Count 1 and identified Count 8 as a separate section 246 offense.
Sentencing Transcripts
How the Life Term Was Constructed
At sentencing, the prosecution acknowledged that the gang allegation connected to Count 8 had been written as Penal Code section 186.22(b)(1)(B).
The prosecution then asked the court to apply section 186.22(b)(5) instead, arguing that the change concerned a legal issue rather than a new factual finding.
The court selected Count 8—the section 246 offense—as the count carrying the greatest punishment. Applying section 186.22(b)(5), the court imposed a life term with a minimum of 15 years. That minimum was then doubled to 30 years because of the prior-strike allegation.
The transcript separately describes Count 1 as attempted murder without premeditation. The sentences imposed on Counts 1 and 7 were stayed under Penal Code section 654.
Central question: Was section 186.22(b)(5) properly applied after the jury returned its written findings?
Clerk’s Minute Order
An Official Record That Contradicts Itself
The minute order initially identifies the offenses correctly:
Count 1: Penal Code sections 664/187(a).
Count 8: Penal Code section 246.
It records Count 8 as the base count and states that Justin received 30 years to life. It also records a separate sentence on Count 1 and states that the Count 1 sentence was stayed.
However, the final “Sentence Breakdown” later describes Count 8 as a violation of Penal Code sections 664/187(a).
That description conflicts with the charging document and jury verdict form, which identify Count 8 as the section 246 offense.
Important point: The minute order identifies Count 8 as section 246 in one place and as sections 664/187(a) in another. Both entries cannot be correct.
Abstract of Judgment
What Was Sent to the Prison System
The Abstract of Judgment communicates the sentence to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
The indeterminate abstract identifies Count 8 as Penal Code section 246—shooting at an occupied motor vehicle. It records a sentence of 30 years to life on Count 8 and states that section 186.22(b)(5) was applied.
Unlike the conflicting sentence breakdown in the minute order, the Abstract of Judgment does not identify Count 8 as attempted murder.
Important point: The Abstract identifies Count 8 as section 246, while the minute order’s final breakdown identifies the same count as sections 664/187(a).
What the Records Show Together
Why the Complete Record Needs Review
When the documents are placed in order, they show:
The Amended Information identifies Count 1 as attempted murder and Count 8 as a section 246 offense.
The jury verdict forms show that premeditation was found not true on Count 1 and that Count 8 was the separate section 246 offense.
The sentencing transcript shows that the court selected Count 8 as the base count and applied section 186.22(b)(5) to impose the life term.
The minute order correctly identifies Count 8 as section 246 in some places but later describes it as sections 664/187(a).
The Abstract of Judgment identifies Count 8 as section 246 and records a sentence of 30 years to life under section 186.22(b)(5).
Together, the documents raise two central questions:
Was section 186.22(b)(5) properly applied to Count 8 after the jury returned its findings?
Why does the minute order describe Count 8 as attempted murder when the other records identify it as section 246?
Justin is requesting that qualified legal professionals examine the complete record and determine whether his sentence was properly imposed, accurately recorded, and lawfully transmitted for enforcement.
Closing Statement
The jury’s findings should control the judgment. Every count, statute, enhancement, stayed term, and imposed sentence should match throughout the court record.
Bottom Buttons
ABOUT THE CASE
Link to your Case Overview page.
HELP MAKE A DIFFERENCE
Link to your support and action page.
The main page contains these six summaries. The actual document images go on the five matching dropdown pages.