P. v. English
Filed 7/6/06 P. v. English 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. WINSTON HAZELL ENGLISH, Defendant and Appellant. | E037472 (Super.Ct.No. FSB039925) O P I N I O N |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Donna G. Garza, Judge. Affirmed.
Sharon M. Jones, 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, Raquel M. Gonzalez, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Lynne G. McGinnis, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
On June 19, 2003, defendant, then age 52, went on a shooting spree. In a period of less than one hour and in three different locations, he shot at five people, including his ex-girlfriend, a motel clerk, and three police officers, and assaulted a sixth person, a second motel clerk, with a firearm. Defendant's ex-girlfriend and the first motel clerk suffered gunshot wounds and great bodily injury. The three police officers were not hit.
A jury convicted defendant of five counts of willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664 & 187;[1] counts 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6) and one count of assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b); count 2).[2] Defendant was sentenced to a total term of 70 years, plus two life terms, plus 95 years to life, and appeals.
Defendant contends: (1) the trial court prejudicially erred in failing to instruct the jury sua sponte in counts 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 on several lesser related offenses and the lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter; (2) insufficient evidence supports his conviction in count 5 for the attempted murder of police officer Marc Simpson; and (3) the trial court prejudicially erred in failing to give a Dewberry[3] instruction on whether the attempted murders were committed with premeditation and deliberation. Defendant also raises several claims of sentencing error: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences on all counts; (2) the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences violated his right to a jury trial under Blakely;[4] and (3) his aggregate sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the federal and state Constitutions. Lastly, defendant contends that the cumulative effect of the trial court's errors requires reversal of the judgment. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Prosecution Evidence
1. The Attempted Murder of Tanija Salter (Count 1)
Shortly before 2:00 a.m. on June 19, 2003, defendant drove to an AM/PM market located on the corner of Sixth and H Streets in San Bernardino. There, he got out of his car and approached his ex-girlfriend, Tanija Salter, who had walked to the store to get a cup of coffee. Defendant was angry because he had gone to Salter's house and did not find her home. He pushed Salter into his car and drove around for at least 30 minutes, yelling at her and telling her she had disrespected him.
While driving, defendant struck Salter in the face and left arm, saying, â€
