P. v. Valcore
Filed 6/12/06 P. v. Valcore 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WALTER VALCORE, Defendant and Appellant. | B182505 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA054226) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Fred J. Fujioka, Judge. Conviction affirmed; remanded for further proceedings.
Murray A. Rosenberg, 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, Steven D. Matthews and Juliet H. Swoboda, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_______________________
Walter Valcore, convicted of intentional violation of court orders (Pen. Code,[1] § 273.6, subd. (a)) and contempt of court (§ 166, subd. (a)), challenges his contempt conviction on the ground that it is foreclosed by his conviction for intentional violation of court orders. He also alleges sentencing errors. We affirm the convictions and remand so that the trial court may impose and stay sentence on the contempt charge and correct the sentencing order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Valcore was charged with felony stalking (§ 646.9, subd. (b)). The jury was instructed on three lesser included offenses along with the stalking charge: intentional violation of court orders (§ 273.6, subd. (a)); contempt of court (§ 166, subd. (a)); and misdemeanor stalking (§ 646.9, subd. (a)). Valcore was convicted of intentionally violating court orders and contempt. This appeal follows.
DISCUSSION
I. General and Specific Statutes
Valcore argues that the specific law doctrine precludes his prosecution and conviction under section 166, subdivision (a) in light of his prosecution for violating section 273.6, subdivision (a). The California Supreme Court has described the specific law doctrine as follows: â€
