P. v. Tatum
Filed 6/20/06 P. v. Tatum CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 FIVE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TONY LAVEL TATUM, Defendant and Appellant. | B185914 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA086774) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, William J. Birney, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for resentencing.
Judith Vitek, 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, Assistant Attorney General, Linda C. Johnson, and Lawrence M. Daniels, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant, Tony Lavel Tatum, appeals from his convictions for: false imprisonment by violence (Pen. Code,[1] § 236); second degree robbery (§ 211); and second degree burglary. (§ 459). The jury also found that a principal was armed with a firearm in the commission of all three offenses. (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1).) Defendant argues that the trial court improperly imposed a consecutive sentence for false imprisonment. The Attorney General argues: the trial court should have imposed one-third the midterm for the principal armed enhancement (§12022, subd. (a)(1)) as to counts 2 and 3; the matter should be remanded to allow the trial court to strike or impose the enhancements as to counts 2 and 3; and, the abstract of judgment should be corrected to accurately reflect the sentence imposed. We affirm the judgment of conviction, but reverse the sentence imposed, and remand for resentencing.
We view the evidence in a light most favorable to the judgment. (Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319; People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 690; Taylor v. Stainer (9th Cir. 1994) 31 F.3d 907, 908-909.) On the afternoon of August 2, 2004, Rachel Johnson was working as the branch manager at Gold-X, a payday loan business. Defendant entered the Gold-X and spoke to Ms. Johnson's associate, Tracy, about a loan. Ms. Johnson also spoke to defendant about the loan. Defendant falsely identified himself as â€
