P. v. Fratus
Filed 3/28/06 P. v. Fratus CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOHN RICHARD FRATUS, Defendant and Appellant. | B182139 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA075596) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Victoria M. Chavez, Judge. Affirmed.
Patricia J. Ulibarri, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Robert F. Katz and Lauren E. Dana, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
INTRODUCTION
Defendant John Richard Fratus appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after a jury found him guilty of assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2)), during which he personally used a firearm (id., § 12022.5), and shooting at an inhabited dwelling (id., § 246), during which he personally used a firearm (id., § 12022.53, subd. (b)), and he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm (id., § 12022.53, subd. (c)) proximately causing great bodily injury to the victim (id., § 12022.53, subd. (d)). The jury additionally found true the allegations that the crimes involved great violence, great bodily harm or acts disclosing a high degree of cruelty, viciousness or callousness, and that defendant has engaged in violent conduct indicating a serious danger to society. The trial court sentenced defendant to a determinate term of five years plus an indeterminate term of 25 years to life.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to allow him to testify in his own behalf. We disagree and affirm the judgment.
FACTS
On the evening of January 11, 2004, defendant was visiting with his girlfriend, Demaris Evans (Evans), in her room at her family's home. Evans was eight months pregnant with defendant's child. Evans's friend, Veronica Hale (Hale), was with them. Late in the evening, defendant became upset when Evans refused to go to the store with him. He told Evans, â€
