P. v. Martin
Filed 4/24/06 P. v. Martin 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977 .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. EDILBERTO RODRIGUEZ MARTIN, Defendant and Appellant. | E036898 (Super.Ct.No. SWF005607) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Rodney L. Walker, Judge. Affirmed.
Ballecer & Segal, Natalee Segal; and Christopher C. Hite for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Pamela A. Ratner Sobeck, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and David Delgado-Rucci, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury found Edilberto Rodriguez Martin, defendant and appellant (hereafter defendant), guilty as charged of assault on Adrian E. with a firearm in violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(2) (count 1); assault on Jonathan P.[1] with a firearm in violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(2) (count 2); and maliciously discharging a firearm at an occupied motor vehicle in violation of Penal Code section 246 (count 3).[2] The jury also returned true findings on the special allegation in connection with counts 1 and 2 that defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of those crimes within the meaning of sections 12022.5, subdivision (a)(1) and 1192.7, subdivision (c)(8). Based on the jury's guilty verdicts and true findings, the trial court sentenced defendant to serve a total of nine years four months in state prison.[3]
Defendant raises various claims of error in this appeal, directed at challenging both the jury's guilty verdicts and the trial court's sentence. We conclude defendant's claims are meritless, and therefore will affirm the judgment.
FACTS
The pertinent facts are not in dispute. On September 26, 2003, about 1:45 p.m. Adrian E. was driving with his friend Jonathan P. entering the southbound lanes of Interstate 215 in Murrieta. A red Ford Mustang was also getting on the freeway ahead of Adrian and the driver prevented Adrian from passing once the two cars had successfully merged into traffic. Each time Adrian changed lanes the Mustang's driver also changed lanes, and prevented Adrian from passing.
Eventually, Adrian caught up to the Mustang and as he did so, he â€
