Fear Not Law Articles: P. v. Mack

P. v. Mack

Filed 2/22/07 P. v. Mack 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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,

ONTARIOUS DAQUAN MACK,

Defendant and Appellant.

B190748

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. BA285845)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael K. Kellogg, Judge. Affirmed in part and reversed in part with directions.

Edward H. Schulman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Taylor Nguyen, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________________________

Ontarious Mack appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of forcible rape, during the commission of which he used a knife. The conviction arose from an incident in which defendant raped Julia D. on June 25, 2005, while the two were at the entryway of a building in Los Angeles. The information further alleged that defendant had previously been convicted of a felony within the meaning of Penal Code sections 667.61, subdivision (b) (the â€

Description	Defendant appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of forcible rape, during the commission of which he used a knife. The conviction arose from an incident in which defendant raped Julia D. on June 25, 2005, while the two were at the entryway of a building in Los Angeles. The information further alleged that defendant had previously been convicted of a felony within the meaning of Penal Code sections 667.61, subdivision (b) (the "One Strike" law), 667, subdivisions (b) (i) (the "Three Strikes" law), and 667, subdivision (a)(1).The finding that defendant suffered a prior felony conviction is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings on the allegation of the prior conviction. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.