P. v.Ranselle
Filed 5/3/06 P. v.Ranselle CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD ALAN RANSELLE, Defendant and Appellant. | E037207 (Super.Ct.No. BAF-002887) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Russell F. Schooling, Judge. (Retired judge of the Mun. Ct. for the Southeast Jud. Dist. of L.A., assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6, of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed with directions.
Anthony J. Dain, 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, and Sharon L. Rhodes and Patricia Mallen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted Richard Ranselle of attempted robbery (Pen. Code §§ 664 & 211),[1] first degree burglary (§ 459), wherein Ranselle knew or should have known that the victim was 65 years old or older and he had previously been convicted of burglary (§ 667.9, subd. (b)), and two counts of receiving stolen property. (§ 496, subd. (a).) In bifurcated proceedings, the trial court found Ranselle had suffered a serious prior conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)) and a strike prior (§ 667, subd. (c) & (e)). He was sentenced to prison for 19 years and appeals, claiming insufficiency of the evidence and error in a jury instruction and form submitted to the jury. We reject his contentions and affirm, while directing the trial court to correct an error in the abstract of judgment and to make an addition to it. Facts surrounding these crimes not discussed below are irrelevant to the issues raised.
Issues and Discussion
1. Sufficiency of the Evidence That Ranselle Knew or Should Have Known That the Burglary Victim Was 65 Years Old or Older (§ 667.9, subd.(b))
The almost 92-year-old burglary victim lived in a mobile home park, at the entrance of which was posted a sign saying â€
