P. v. Hutchinson
Filed 5/5/06 P. v. Hutchinson CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SEAN PAUL HUTCHINSON, Defendant and Appellant. | H028732 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CC476132) |
Defendant Sean Paul Hutchinson[1] was convicted after jury trial of possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1)),[2] possession of ammunition by a felon (§ 12316, subd. (b)), and possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code,
§ 11359). The trial court found true allegations that defendant had a prior strike
(§ 1170.12), and that he had served three prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The court denied defendant's Romero[3] motion and sentenced defendant to five years in state prison. The court also imposed a $3,000 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), and a $3,000 suspended parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45).
On appeal defendant contends that (1) his conviction for possession of marijuana for sale must be reversed due to the improper admission of evidence; (2) his due process rights were violated due to prosecutorial misconduct; (3) he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel due to counsel's failure to object on all applicable grounds to the admission of the improper evidence and to the prosecutorial misconduct; (4) reversal is required due to cumulative error; (5) he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel due to counsel's failure to move to dismiss, and failure to object to the amendment of, the information; (6) the court relied upon an impermissible factor in denying his Romero motion; (7) he was deprived of ineffective assistance of counsel due to counsel's failure to object to the trial court's reliance on an impermissible factor; (8) the concurrent sentence for possession of ammunition violates section 654; and (9) the restitution fine and suspended parole revocation fine must be recalculated. We disagree with all of defendant's contentions, and therefore affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
Defendant was charged by information with possession of a firearm by a felon
(§ 12021, subd. (a)(1); count 1), possession of ammunition by a felon (§ 12316, subd. (b); count 2), and selling or offering to sell marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11360, subd. (a); count 3). The information further alleged that defendant had a prior strike
(§ 1170.12), and that he had served three prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The court granted defendant's request for bifurcation of trial on the priors.
Defendant moved in limine to exclude hearsay statements made by people who came to defendant's apartment while police officers were there. Defendant anticipated that the evidence would show that the people told the officers that â€
