legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. English

P. v. English
02:28:2007

P


P. v. English


Filed 2/7/07  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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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.


ANTOINE MAURICE ENGLISH,


            Defendant and Appellant.



            E040298


            (Super.Ct.No. RIF125823)


            O P I N I O N



            APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County.  W. Charles Morgan, Judge.  Affirmed.


            Warren P. Robinson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.


            Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Rhonda Cartwright-Ladendorf, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Kristen K. Chenelia, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


            A jury found defendant and appellant Antoine Maurice English guilty of possessing stolen property under Penal Code section 496, subdivision (a) (count 1), and driving a stolen vehicle under Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a) (count 2).  The trial court sentenced defendant to five years in state prison.  On appeal, defendant contends that the judgment must be reversed because the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument.  We hold that any alleged misconduct was harmless.  Therefore, the judgment is affirmed.


I.  FACTUAL BACKGROUND


A.  Prosecution Evidence


            At 12:15 in the afternoon on September 5, 2005, Mrs. S. (the victim) left her home in Perris.  When she returned about two hours later, she noticed that her 2000 red Honda quad was missing.  The victim asked her children if they knew where the quad was.  She also drove around to look for the quad.  When the quad did not show up, the victim called the police about 3:00 p.m. and reported it stolen.


            About one hour later, Carlos S., the victim's 13-year-old son, rode his bike over to his friend Eddie C.'s home, a few blocks away.  While Carlos and Eddie were sitting on the porch, they heard a quad being driven in a field nearby.  Carlos recognized the quad as the one stolen because it had a distinct sound; it did not have a right muffler and would backfire.


            Carlos and Eddie saw two men taking turns riding the quad.  Eddie rode Carlos's bike by the men to get a closer look.  As Eddie rode by, the quad stopped, and the men were trying to get it started.  Eddie heard defendant ask the other man, later identified as Steven Brewster, for a screwdriver.  Carlos also ran into the field to have a look at the two individuals riding the quad.


            Carlos called his mother; she notified the police.  Carlos and Eddie gave a physical and clothing description of the two men riding the quad to Deputy Darrin Contreras of the Riverside County Sheriff's Department.  Deputy Contreras was flagged down by a citizen who pointed him in the direction of two metal sheds a few blocks away.


            Deputy Contreras contacted Brewster outside of the shed and ordered Marie Holliday, who was hiding underneath an RV parked in the shed, out of the shed.  Deputy Brian Pentel found defendant hiding in the back bedroom of the RV.  Deputy Pentel recovered the stolen quad in the shed.  The quad's DMV license sticker had been altered and additional stickers were placed on the license plate.  The quad was no longer running because the wires had been crossed and fluid was put in the wrong place.


            Based on the clothes, build, skin color, and hair, Eddie positively identified defendant and Brewster outside the shed as the two individuals riding the quad.  Carlos also recognized defendant based on his ethnicity and his clothes.


            Deputy Pentel interviewed defendant after reading him his Miranda[1] rights.  Defendant first told Deputy Pentel that he had gone to the store to buy a soda, and when he returned, Brewster was at the â€





Description A jury found defendant guilty of possessing stolen property under Penal Code section 496, subdivision (a) (count 1), and driving a stolen vehicle under Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a) (count 2). The trial court sentenced defendant to five years in state prison. On appeal, defendant contends that the judgment must be reversed because the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument. Court hold that any alleged misconduct was harmless. Therefore, the judgment is affirmed.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale