P. v. Scoma
Filed 10/24/06 P. v. Scoma CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Shasta)
----
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PHILIP JOSEPH SCOMA, Defendant and Appellant. | C050146
(Super. Ct. No. 03F5957)
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] |
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on October 4, 2006, be modified as follows:
On page 7, the first full paragraph, beginning “Defendant’s contention that” is deleted and the following paragraph is inserted in its place:
Defendant claims intent to kill is negated by the fact that the gun was in the left hand of the right-handed defendant. Nicholas told the police in an interview that “the last thing I remember was him holding looking down and holding the it was in his left hand. I think. I don’t remember. I really don’t remember. I really don’t remember . . . .” A tape and transcript of the interview were presented to the jury. At trial, Nicholas testified that defendant held the gun in both hands. Defendant’s contention is supported by evidence that is equivocal at best. It does not negate the substantial evidence supporting the jury’s verdict.
There is no change in the judgment.
Appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied.
SIMS , Acting P.J.
DAVIS , J.
HULL , J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line Lawyers.
