P. v. Stokes

Filed 6/27/06 P. v. Stokes CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Tomson T. Ong, Judge. Affirmed.

Jolene Larimore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Robert F. Katz and Robert M. Snider, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________

Willie David Stokes appeals from the judgment entered after a jury concluded he had not met his burden to prove he was legally insane when he committed the offenses of assault with a deadly weapon and possession of cocaine on January 12, 1996. Stokes contends the jury's sanity finding cannot be sustained based on the evidence presented at trial and the trial court erred both in instructing the jury and in denying his new trial motion. Stokes also contends he is entitled to an award of presentence conduct credits. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. The Charges

An information filed on March 28, 1996 charged Stokes with one count of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1))[1] and one count of possession of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)). The information specially alleged Stokes had suffered prior serious or violent felony convictions that subjected him to sentencing under section 667, subdivision (a), and as a â€