Fear Not Law Articles: PEOPLE v. SMITH Part I

PEOPLE v. SMITH

Filed 8/18/06; part. pub. order 9/7/06 (see end of opn.)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

CURTIS EDWARD SMITH,

Defendant and Appellant.

E037036

(Super.Ct.No. BLF1710)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Randall Donald White, Judge. Affirmed with modifications.

Carmela F. Simoncini, 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, Gil Gonzalez, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Warren Robinson and Lynne McGinnis, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

On January 31, 2001, an information was filed charging defendant Curtis Edward Smith with inflicting corporal injury upon a spouse (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a),^[1] counts 1 and 7), attempted premeditated murder (§§ 664/187; count 2), kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a); count 3), assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count 4), making criminal threats (§ 422; count 5), and residential burglary (§ 459; count 6). It was further alleged in counts 2, 3, 4, and 7 that defendant personally used a knife as a deadly weapon (§§ 12022, subd. (b)(1) & 1192.7, subd. (c)(24)) and that he committed the offenses while released from custody pending the disposition of another felony offense (§ 12022.1) As to counts 2, 4, and 7, the information alleged that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury (§§ 12022.7, subd. (d) & 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)). Finally, the information alleged a â€

Description	Where defendant's spouse was awarded sole possession of the family home and a temporary restraining order against defendant because of his acts of violence toward her, so that even though defendant had a possessory interest in the home, he did not possess the right to enter as an occupant when the spouse was present, defendant could be found guilty of burglarizing the home. There was sufficient evidence to support jury's true findings of allegations that defendant was out on bail on a felony offense at the time of the commission of charged offenses where, although there was no explicit testimony that defendant was arrested for a felony following the previous incident, and the prosecution did not introduce documentary evidence concerning defendant's release on bail following the arrest, substantial evidence supported a finding that defendant was initially charged with a felony concerning the previous incident and therefore had been released on bail on a felony charge.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.