P. v. Rodriguez

Filed 5/17/06 P. v. Rodriguez CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Ronald S. Coen, Judge. Affirmed.

Maureen L. Fox, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Lawrence M. Daniels and Roberta L. Davis, Jr., Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________________

Gerardo Rodriguez appeals his convictions for carjacking, robbery and felony evasion of an officer. Appellant asserts the trial court erred in: (1) admitting testimony from the victim that he received an anonymous threat and thereafter instructing the jury as to the use of the threat evidence; (2) allowing the prosecution to question a defense witness concerning her views of the potential penal consequences of her trial testimony; and (3) informing the jury of the costs to conduct a trial. Appellant also claims the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during closing arguments by referring to (a) the threat evidence; (b) the juvenile court's rejection of the defense witness' version of the alleged crimes; and (c) the penal consequences of the defense witness' testimony. None of appellant's claims warrant reversal of his convictions. The court properly admitted threat evidence and allowed questions to defense witness concerning her belief as to the penal consequences resulting from her testimony. In addition, appellant failed to object to the court's comments about the costs of trial or to the purported prosecutorial misconduct. In any event, in the context of the pre-trial admonitions, the court did not err in remarking on the expense to run the court. Finally, the prosecutor did not engage in prejudicial misconduct. Consequently, we affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 25, 2004, Eduardo Rosales was driving home at about 11:30 p.m. on San Fernando Road in Pacoima. He testified one of the headlights on his Oldsmobile did not work properly so he stopped in a parking lot at a fast food restaurant and got out of the car to check the light. Rosales noticed a man, later identified as appellant, standing nearby using a pay telephone. Rosales also saw a young woman, later identified as Christina B. (a juvenile) standing in the area. Rosales noticed Christina B. wore a Dodgers shirt.

Rosales told the jury that as he got back into the car, Christina B. approached him and asked if he had any money. While they were talking, appellant approached the Oldsmobile, got into the passenger's side and closed the door. Rosales saw appellant put his hand under his shirt, which lead Rosales to believe appellant might have a gun. Appellant told Rosales: â€