P. v. Young

Filed 6/21/06 P. v. Young 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Marsha Revel, Judge. Affirmed.

Patricia A. Andreoni, 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, Keith H. Borjon and Sharlene A. Honnaka, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

______________________________________

Defendant and appellant Rickey Gene Young, II, was convicted by the trial court of three counts of inflicting corporal injury upon a cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a), possession of marijuana for sale (Health and Saf. Code, § 11359), and dissuading a witness by force or threat (Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (c)(1)). Defendant was sentenced to state prison for a term of two years. In this timely appeal, defendant argues the sentence in count 6 (dissuading a witness by force or threat) should have been stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654. We affirm.

FACTS

We briefly summarize the facts, applying the traditional rule of viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment. (People v. Staten (2000) 24 Cal.4th 434, 460.) Between July 17 and 24, 2005, defendant struck his cohabitant, Danielle Raman, with a plastic extension cord during an argument, leaving a mark on Ms. Raman's left knee. On August 12, 2005, during another argument, defendant grabbed Ms. Raman by the arm, leaving bruises.

Defendant and Ms. Raman argued on August 14, 2005, over defendant's plan to take marijuana from a large bag and put it into smaller bags. Ms. Raman said she was going to call the police, but defendant stopped her from using the phone in the apartment by disconnecting the cord. Defendant also kept Ms. Raman from leaving the apartment to call the police by standing in front of the door and blocking the door with a chair. Frustrated by defendant's conduct, Ms. Raman grabbed and broke defendant's cell phone. Upset with the damage to his phone, defendant grabbed Ms. Raman by the neck and threw her against a wall.

Defendant grabbed Ms. Raman's purse as she attempted to leave their apartment, saying he was going to throw it away. Ms. Raman suffered cuts to her hand during the struggle over the purse. Defendant left the apartment with an army bag and Ms. Raman's purse.

Ms. Raman called the police. After the police arrived, Ms. Raman received a telephone call from defendant, who said he wanted to meet in order to get a key from her. Defendant returned the purse to Ms. Raman. Nothing was missing from the purse. Defendant fled when the police attempted to take him into custody. Defendant ran into an alley, threw his backpack over a fence, and started climbing the fence. A taser was fired at defendant. Although he was not hit with the taser, it gave off the pronounced rattle of electricity and defendant surrendered. Defendant told the police his girlfriend was upset about the marijuana, which he said he sold from time to time, although it was mostly for personal use.

Inside defendant's backpack was a one-pound ziplock baggie containing 428.19 grams of marijuana and 30-40 unused plastic baggies. A large amount of cash was seized from defendant's person at the time of his arrest. An officer with expertise in narcotics possession and sale expressed the opinion the marijuana possessed by defendant was for the purpose of sale.

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends the trial court should have stayed the sentence in count 6 pursuant to Penal Code section 654.^[1] Defendant reasons that offenses in count 4 (corporal injury upon a cohabitant) and count 6 (dissuading a witness by threat or violence) were committed at the same time and place with a single intent and objective, and therefore the concurrent state prison term for the latter offense should have been stayed.

â€