P. v. Vigil

Filed 6/28/06 P. v. Vigil 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Philip Gutierrez, Judge. Affirmed.

Allen G. Weinberg, 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, Margaret E. Maxwell and Marc A. Kohm, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________

INTRODUCTION

Defendant and appellant Marshall A. Vigil was sentenced to 150 years to life in prison. He contends on appeal that his sentence violates the California and federal constitutions because it is excessive and serves no valid legislative purpose. We reject that contention, and we affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND^[1]

On two separate occasions, Vigil robbed a Der Weinerschnitzel restaurant. A jury found Vigil guilty of two counts of attempted second degree robbery (Pen. Code,^[2] §§ 664, 211); two counts of second degree robbery (§ 211), and four counts of false imprisonment by violence (§ 236). The jury also found true allegations that Vigil personally used a firearm during the commission of the robberies and attempted robberies (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)); that a principal was armed with a gun during commission of one of the robberies and both attempted robberies (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)); and that a principal was armed with a gun during commission of two of the false imprisonment counts (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court found true allegations that Vigil had suffered two prior â€