P. v. Estrada

Filed 4/25/06 P. v. Estrada 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Dennis A. McConaghy, Judge. Affirmed.

George L. Schraer for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Barry Carlton, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Kristen K. Chenelia, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

1. Introduction^[1]

A jury convicted defendant of one count of possession of heroin for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351) and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1)). As to count 1, the jury found true the allegations that defendant had a prior felony conviction within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (c), and was personally armed with a firearm. (§ 12022, subd. (c).) As to counts 1 and 2, the jury also found true the allegations that the crimes were committed for the benefit of a street gang. (§ 186.22, subd. (b).) Defendant admitted three strike priors, three serious felony priors, and three prison priors. (§§ 667, subds. (c) and (e)(2)(A); 667.5, subd. (a); 667.5, subd. (b); and 1170.12, subd. (c)(2).) The court sentenced defendant to a prison term of 74 years to life.

On appeal, defendant challenges the admission of his 1993 offenses for possession of a weapon and heroin, the sufficiency of the evidence to support the street-gang enhancements, the validity of the serious-felony and street-gang enhancements, and the consecutive sentencing imposed for the two convictions. We hold the admission of the prior evidence was not prejudicial error; sufficient evidence established the street-gang enhancements; the serious-felony and street-gang enhancements were otherwise valid; and the consecutive sentencing was appropriate. We affirm.

2. Facts

Defendant and his girlfriend, Sondra Torrez, had an argument early one morning on Smith Avenue in a residential neighborhood. At one point, defendant removed a gun from Torrez's hand and put it in his car. When one of the residents called the police, Torrez left because she had outstanding warrants.

When the police arrived, they detained defendant and his companion, Henry Segura. Both men said they had come in an Acura to pick up another car. In the Acura, police found 40.9 grams of heroin; a clear plastic bag containing nine pills and two vials of ephedrine; two syringes; plastic bags; and, in a woman's sequined cosmetics bag, a loaded Smith and Wesson revolver, eleven .38-caliber bullets, and two .357-caliber bullets. After initially disclaiming knowledge, Segura then claimed the guns and drugs were his. Later, another search of the car found a digital scale, documents bearing defendant's name, and a disposable camera containing photographs of defendant. Marc Bender, a police drug expert, testified the quantity of heroin constituted about 400 doses, worth about $8,000, and was possessed for purposes of sale.

Segura, whose street name is â€