P. v. Quinonez
Filed 9/7/06 P. v. Quinonez CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAYMOND CHARLES QUINONEZ, Defendant and Appellant. | H027654 (Santa Cruz County Super. Ct. No. F03828) |
I. Introduction
On October 31, 2001, authorities in the City of Watsonville received anonymous telephone calls reporting that bombs had been planted at schools and other places in and around the city. Law enforcement officers investigated the reports and found four pipe bombs--two at an elementary school, one at a children's center, and one in an orchard. Meanwhile, as law enforcement officers were occupied investigating the bomb reports two masked men entered a business in a different part of town, pointed a semi-automatic handgun at the employees, and demanded cash.
Police soon suspected that the bomb scare had been intended to keep law enforcement distracted during the planned robbery. Defendant Raymond Charles Quinonez, a parolee and confidential police informant, became a suspect when one of the officers investigating the bombs realized that the phone used to report the bombs was the same phone defendant had used to call police in the past. Police officers went to defendant's house and escorted him to the police department where he was questioned at length. Defendant eventually confessed to making the calls and to helping construct and plant the four pipe bombs.[1]
The jury convicted defendant of one count of conspiracy to commit robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 211 (count 1)),[2] four counts of possession of a destructive device near a school or other public place (§ 12303.2 (counts 6-9)), two counts of making a false bomb report to a peace officer (§ 148.1, subd. (a) (counts 10 & 11)), and one count of attempted robbery (§§ 664, 211 (count 13)). The jury acquitted defendant of a third false bomb-report charge (count 12) and was unable to reach a verdict on four counts of possession of an explosive device with intent to injure, intimidate, or terrorize (§ 12303.3 (counts 2-5)). The jury found one arming allegation to be true (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)) and the trial court separately found that defendant has suffered one prior strike conviction (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)), two prison priors (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), and one prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)).
The trial court sentenced defendant to 25 years and eight months in prison and awarded 966 days of custody credit. (§ 2900.5.) Because of defendant's repeated misbehavior while in jail the court refused to grant any conduct credit. (§ 4019.) The court recalled the sentence in light of Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296, and resentenced defendant to a term of 25 years and four months in prison. The term reflects consecutive sentences on all counts except counts 11 and 13, which were stayed pursuant to section 654.
On appeal, defendant challenges the admissibility of his confession and the trial court's exclusion of other statements made in the course of his interviews with the police. We find no merit in these contentions.
Defendant also contends, among other things, that the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction for making a false bomb report to a peace officer because a telephoned report to a police dispatcher is not a report to a peace officer within the meaning of section 148.1, subdivision (a). Defendant maintains that to be guilty of violating this subdivision, one must make the allegedly false report directly to the peace officer and not via an intermediary such as the telephone dispatcher. We conclude that defendant's construction of the statute is inconsistent with the obvious legislative intent.
We do find merit in defendant's final argument that section 654 prohibits punishment for conspiracy and for the substantive crimes that were the object of the conspiracy. Accordingly, we shall reverse the judgment and remand the matter to the trial court for resentencing.
II. Facts
A. The Bomb Scare and the Attempted Robbery
Shortly after midnight on October 30, 2001, an anonymous caller using a fake accent telephoned 911 to report that he had placed an explosive device in an orchard near the corner of â€
