P. v. Germino

Filed 5/26/06  P. v. Germino CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Amador)

     Defendant William Joseph Germino attempted to murder Daniel Yuhasz (the victim) in Tuolumne County and dumped his body in Amador County while enroute to Reno with the victim's motor home.  Defendant was prosecuted and convicted in Amador County for attempted murder and lesser related offenses.  On appeal, he argues that the Amador County Superior Court did not have jurisdiction of two of the lesser offenses because they were committed in Tuolumne County.  We reach a contrary conclusion and affirm.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

     Defendant bludgeoned the victim with a manzanita club in the mobile home they shared in Columbia, a town located in Tuolumne County.  Defendant took the keys to the mobile home, which the victim owned, and drove it to Reno, Nevada.  While passing through Amador County, defendant dumped the victim's body on a turnout off Highway 49.  The victim survived the attack, but suffered permanent injuries. 

     A jury convicted defendant of attempted willful, deliberate and premeditated murder (Pen. Code, §§  187, subd. (a), 664, subd. (a) -- subsequent undesignated statutory references are to this Code), assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), kidnapping (§  207, subd. (a)), robbery (§  211), false imprisonment by violence (§  236), aggravated mayhem (§ 205), and vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), as well as multiple enhancements for great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) and use of a deadly or dangerous weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)).  The court imposed concurrent terms of life with the possibility of parole for the attempted murder and aggravated mayhem convictions, but imposed a section 654 stay on the latter.  The court imposed a concurrent upper term sentence for the section 245, subdivision (a)(1) conviction, but issued a section 654 stay of this sentence as well.  Defendant's aggregate sentence consisted of an indeterminate term of life with the possibility of parole plus a determinate term of 13 years.

DISCUSSION

     Prior to submission of the case to the jury, defendant moved to dismiss the counts alleging attempted murder, assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury, and aggravated mayhem because they were completed in Tuolumne County, thereby depriving Amador County of territorial jurisdiction of these offenses.  The trial court denied the motion. 

     On appeal, defendant renews his venue argument with respect to the assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury and aggravated mayhem convictions, and adds that the court's ruling resulted in a denial of his due process rights.  Noting that the general venue statute states, â€