P. v. Broom
Filed 8/3/06 P. v. Broom CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SERGIO VALIENTE MERCADO BROOM, Defendant and Appellant. |
F048180
(Super. Ct. No. 04CM4522A)
OPINION |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. Peter M. Schultz, Judge.
Gregory Marshall, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, Brian Alvarez and William K. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
After a jury trial, Sergio Mercado Broom (defendant) and his codefendant, Eduardo Nuno (Nuno) (collectively, defendants), were found guilty of conspiracy to commit arson (Pen. Code,[1] §§ 182, subd. (a)(1)/451, subd. (b); count 1), attempted arson (§ 455; count 2), and possession of a destructive device (§ 12303.3; count 3). Defendants admitted that the offenses were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang
(§ 186.22, subd. (b)), and the court found that defendant had suffered a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced defendant to a total prison term of 14 years: the upper term of eight years for count 1, plus five years for the gang enhancement and one year for the prior prison term enhancement. The court stayed the terms for the remaining counts under section 654.
On appeal, defendant contends: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions for conspiracy to commit arson and attempted arson; (2) the court erred by failing to instruct the jury with CALJIC No. 2.02; and (3) the court's imposition of the upper term violated his constitutional rights under Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 (Blakely). In addition, defendant joins the ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised by Nuno in his separate appeal (case no. F048375). Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment.
FACTS
This case arises out of a series of escalating confrontations which occurred on November 10, 2004, in an area of Hanford commonly referred to as â€
