P. v. Pawar

Filed 2/15/07  P. v. Pawar CA4/3

NOT TO BEPUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

CaliforniaRules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing orrelying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, exceptas specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified forpublication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OFAPPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATEDISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

                        Appealfrom a judgment of the SuperiorCourt of Orange County, Richard W. Stanford, Jr., Judge.  Affirmed asmodified.

                        HaroldGreenberg and Carlo Fisco for Defendant and Appellant.

                        BillLockyer and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorneys General, Mary Jo Graves, ChiefAssistant Attorney General, Gary W.Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Rhonda Cartwright-Ladendorf and Robert M.Foster, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

*               *                *

                        A juryconvicted Amulpreet Singh Pawar of aggravated assault (Pen.Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) and found true the allegation he personallyinflicted great bodily injury on the victim (Pen. Code, § 12022.7).  Pawarcontends (1) the prosecutor committed misconduct by cross-examining him about the veracity ofother witnesses, and (2) a probation condition governing his association withother persons should be stricken as a clerical error.  We agree the probationcondition must be stricken.  In all other respects we affirm the judgment.

FACTS

                        Thevictim, Satinder Singh, testified as follows:  On the night of March 26, 2005, Pawar approached Singh at a party and said, â€