P. v. SITHIXAY
Filed 4/28/06
CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SITHIXAY MANILA, Defendant and Appellant. |
F046611
(Super. Ct. No. 122031)
OPINION |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Valeriano Saucedo, Judge.
Susan Burke, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, Wanda Hill Rouzan, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Continue from Part I ……..
The cases on which the People rely, People v. Ratcliff, supra, 223 Cal.App.3d 1401 and People v. Harrison (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 115, are distinguishable. In Ratcliff, the defendant committed two robberies about an hour and a half apart and was arrested half an hour after the second robbery. He received sentence enhancements for being armed with a firearm in the commission of each robbery. He was also convicted of and received an additional sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. (People v. Ratcliff, supra, 223 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1404-1405, 1407-1408.) The Court of Appeal rejected his argument that imposing sentences for both being armed during the offenses and being a felon in possession of a firearm violated section 654. Noting that the crime of being a felon in possession of a firearm â€
