Fear Not Law Articles: P. v. Smith

P. v. Smith

Filed 1/23/07 P. v. Smith CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

GREGORY LEE SMITH,

Defendant and Appellant.

B189219

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. TA079382)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,

William R. Chidsey, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.

Linda Acaldo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Kenneth N. Sokoler and Robert S. Henry, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________

Gregory Lee Smith appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial which resulted in his conviction of carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a)) and the trial court's findings Smith previously had been convicted of three serious felonies within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (a)(1), (b)-(i); 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and had served two prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court struck two of Smith's Three Strikes prior convictions and sentenced him to a term of 20 years in state prison.

Smith contends (1) he was denied due process of law and his conviction must be reversed because there is insufficient evidence to support his guilt as the actual perpetrator of the carjacking and the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the intent required for guilt as an aider and abettor and (2) the trial court erred by denying his motions for acquittal and a new trial. We affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. Relevant evidence.

Viewed in accordance with the usual rules of appellate review (People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 11; People v. Johnston (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1299, 1303-1304), the evidence relevant to the issues presented on appeal established that at approximately 8:00 a.m. on May 27, 2005, Jesus Hernandez was at the cash register at the â€

Description	Defendant appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial which resulted in his conviction of carjacking (Pen. Code, S 215, subd. (a)) and the trial court's findings Smith previously had been convicted of three serious felonies within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, SS 667, subd. (a)(1), (b) (i); 1170.12, subds. (a) (d)) and had served two prison terms (Pen. Code, S 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court struck two of Smith's Three Strikes prior convictions and sentenced him to a term of 20 years in state prison. Smith contends (1) he was denied due process of law and his conviction must be reversed because there is insufficient evidence to support his guilt as the actual perpetrator of the carjacking and the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the intent required for guilt as an aider and abettor and (2) the trial court erred by denying his motions for acquittal and a new trial. Court affirm the judgment.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.