P. v. Lugo
Filed 7/13/06 P. v. Lugo 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. ROBERT ULISES LUGO et al., Defendants and Appellants. | E038380 (Super.Ct.No. SWF008523) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Dennis A. McConaghy, Judge. Affirmed as modified.
Richard Schwartzberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Ury Manfredo DeLeon.
Lewis A. Wenzell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant Appellant Robert Ulises Lugo.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Pamela Ratner Sobeck, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and David Delgado-Rucci, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
Appellants Robert Lugo and Ury DeLeon[1] (appellants) contend the trial court, in imposing consecutive sentences on two of four counts of attempted murder, failed to comply with subdivision (c) of Penal Code[2] section 1170, which requires that the court state the reasons for its determinate sentence choice. Appellants also contend the court lacked jurisdiction under sections 664 and 186.22, subdivision (b)(5), to impose two consecutive terms of 15 years to life for premeditated attempted murder. The first contention lacks merit, as indeterminate sentences are not governed by the determinate sentencing scheme. However, we agree that the abstract of judgment must be modified--and the People so concede--to delete the reference to â€
