P. v. Alvarado
Filed 2/17/06 P. v. Alvarado CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JUAN ANTONIO ALVARADO, Defendant and Appellant. | E036846 (Super.Ct.No. RIF111541) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. William S. Lebov, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Yolo Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Michele A. Douglass, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Rhonda L. Cartwright-Ladendorf, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Erika Hiramatsu, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
An information charged defendant and appellant Juan Antonio Alvarado (defendant) and co-defendant Juan Rocha[1] with carjacking under Penal Code[2] section 215, subdivision (a) (count 1), and robbery under section 211 (count 2). The information also alleged as to both counts that (1) defendant knew Rocha was armed with a firearm under section 12022, subdivision (a)(1); and (2) defendant furnished a firearm to Rocha to assist him in committing a felony under section 12022.4. A jury convicted defendant of both counts, and found true both firearm allegations as to both counts. The trial court sentenced defendant to a total of seven years in state prison.
On appeal, defendant contends that (1) his convictions are not supported by substantial evidence; (2) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) in failing to object to alleged prosecutorial misconduct; and (3) the trial court abused its discretion in failing to admonish the prosecutor for the alleged misconduct. For the reasons set forth below, we shall affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
I. Prosecution Evidence
On July 30, 2003, around 9:00 a.m., Estela DeLeon (the victim) drove her Suburban to a Corona Stater Brothers store and parked. As she got out, with her purse hanging from her left arm, the victim was suddenly face-to-face with a man pointing a revolver at her stomach. In Spanish, the victim described the revolver as â€
