P. v. Moore

Filed 2/7/07  P. v. Moore CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 EIGHT

            APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.  Gary  J. Ferrari, Judge.  Affirmed.

            Jeffrey S. Kross, 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, Assistant Attorney General, Susan D. Martynec and Alene M. Games, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________

            Appellant Kenneth Moore shot his ex-girlfriend, K.C., because she refused to go back to living with him and working as a prostitute.  He was convicted of attempted premeditated murder and personal discharge of a firearm, causing great bodily injury.  The sentence was life imprisonment, consecutive to 25 years to life in prison.  On appeal, he contends:  (1) The trial court denied him due process of law by refusing to instruct on voluntary intoxication; and (2) There was insufficient evidence that K.C.'s gunshot wounds constituted great bodily injury, for the purpose of Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (d) (§ 12022.53(d)).[1]

            We find no error, and affirm.

FACTS

1.  Prosecution Evidence

            In July 2005, at the time of the trial, appellant was 24 years old, and K.C. was 22 years old.  They met in 2001.  She was a runaway from a group home.  She and appellant became lovers.  They moved into a hotel together.  At his suggestion, she worked as a prostitute.  He taught her the profession and forced her to continue with it.  Except for brief periods of separation, they lived off of her earnings for the next three years.

            In June 2003, K.C. decided to stop being a prostitute.  She moved out of appellant's room.  Towards the end of that month, as she walked down the street, he stopped his red car near her.  He asked her to talk with him.  She got into the car.  He drove her to a location frequented by prostitutes, and demanded that she make some money for him.  She declined.  He pulled out a handgun and pistol-whipped her in the face.  She left the car, made some money through prostitution, and gave it to him.  They drove around in the car for a while.  He wanted her to come back to him.  She refused.  Finally, he dragged her out of the car and told her to run.  As she ran away, he fired three shots, but did not hit her.

            A week or two later, on July 13, 2003, K.C. was living at a hotel room that appellant's cousin, Kenneth Beasley, had rented for her as a favor.  She had begun dating someone else, but still loved appellant.  She drove with appellant to get something to eat.  Later that evening, he came to her room.  While she was in the shower, he took $250 from her pants.  They then had consensual sex.  He asked her to come back to him.  She refused, but agreed to go with him to his aunt's house.  He called somebody and said that â€