P. v. Joshua
Filed 8/17/06 P. v. Joshua 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. CURTIS BARNETTE JOSHUA, Defendant and Appellant. | E038511 (Super.Ct.No. FWV 027967) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Ingrid Adamson Uhler, Judge. Affirmed.
Sean A. O'Connor for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Peter Quon, Jr., Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Pat Zaharopoulos, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1. Introduction
A jury convicted defendant Curtis Barnette Joshua of second degree robbery (count 1) (Pen. Code, § 211),[1] criminal threats (count 2) (§ 422), and evading an officer (count 3) (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)). The court found that defendant committed the following prior convictions: two prior strike convictions within the meaning of section 667, subdivisions (b) through (i); two prior serious felony convictions under section 667, subdivision (a)(1); in count 1, a prior prison conviction under section 667.5, subdivision (a); and, in counts 2 and 3, two prior prison convictions under section 667.5, subdivision (b). The court sentenced defendant to a total prison term of 30 years to life.
On appeal, defendant raises the following claims: the court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of attempted criminal threats; insufficient evidence supported each of the substantive offenses; the prosecutor committed Griffin error by commenting on defendant's failure to testify at trial;[2] the court erred in imposing a separate concurrent term for the offense of evading an officer; and his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance during and after the trial.
For the reasons stated below, we reject defendant's claims and affirm the judgment.
2. Factual History
On May 4, 2003, Ericka Gavin was working the evening shift as an assistant manager at the Hollywood Video store on Archibald and Baseline in Rancho Cucamonga. At 11:00 p.m., Gavin greeted a customer, who was identified as defendant, as he entered the store and walked toward the games section. Gavin later observed defendant leaving the store with video games without paying for them. As Gavin ran out of the store after defendant, she noticed a blue Mustang waiting outside. Gavin told defendant to drop the items. Defendant responded, â€
