People v. Emmanuel Romero
People v. Emmanuel Romero
06:14:2006
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
EMMANUEL ROMERO,
Defendant and Appellant.
B185902
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA076708)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Allen J. Webster, Judge. Affirmed.
Lynda A. Romero, 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, Victoria B. Wilson and John Yang, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
*Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 97(b) and 976.1, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of parts I and II of the Discussion.
Emmanuel Romero was convicted of murder and attempted murder as the driver in a drive-by shooting. He contends the judgment must be reversed because of instructional errors and insufficiency of the evidence to support the criminal street gang allegation imposed pursuant to Penal Code section186.22, subdivision (b)(1). In the published portion of this opinion, we hold that the specific intent element of section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1), requiring a showing of â€
06:14:2006
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
EMMANUEL ROMERO,
Defendant and Appellant.
B185902
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA076708)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Allen J. Webster, Judge. Affirmed.
Lynda A. Romero, 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, Victoria B. Wilson and John Yang, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
*Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 97(b) and 976.1, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of parts I and II of the Discussion.
Emmanuel Romero was convicted of murder and attempted murder as the driver in a drive-by shooting. He contends the judgment must be reversed because of instructional errors and insufficiency of the evidence to support the criminal street gang allegation imposed pursuant to Penal Code section186.22, subdivision (b)(1). In the published portion of this opinion, we hold that the specific intent element of section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1), requiring a showing of â€
| Description | A decision regarding that there was sufficient evidence that defendant intended to commit the robbery in association with other gang members. |
| Rating |
