P. v. Vanwhy
Filed
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DONNY RICHARD VANWHY, Defendant and Appellant. | E039574 (Super.Ct.Nos. SWF009632 & SWF010666) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Robert George Spitzer, Judge. Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
Gerald J. Miller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Rhonda Cartwright-Ladendorf, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Robert M. Foster, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1. Introduction
Defendant and appellant Donny Richard Vanwhy appeals his conviction of one count of manufacturing methamphetamine, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11379.6, subdivision (a).[1] He contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of two of defendant's prior convictions as improper character or disposition evidence. (See Evid. Code, § 1101, subd. (a).) He also contends that an enhancement for drug offenses taking place within a certain distance of a school, during school hours, was improper. The People concede that the â€
