P. v. Crist
02:19:2006
xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word"
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
P. v. Crist
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff v. BRIAN MARTIN CRIST, Defendant | B181498 (Los Angeles Super. Ct. |
APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, William R. Chidsey, Jr., Judge.
Kevin
D. Sheehy, 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, Robert Katz and
Lauren E. Dana, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
this case, we determine that although there was
defendant was guilty before the case was finally submitted for the jury's
decision, the misconduct did not result in any actual prejudice to the defendant,
whose conviction we affirm.
Defendant and
appellant, Brian Martin Crist, appeals from the judgment entered following his
conviction, by jury trial, for transportation of a controlled substance and for
possession of pseudoephedrine with intent
to manufacture methamphetamine, with prior drug conviction and prior prison
term findings (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11379, 11383, 11370.2; Pen.
Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">
Sentenced to state prison for 12 years, Crist claims there was
trial error.
The judgment is
affirmed.
Viewed in accordance
with the usual rule of appellate review (People
v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206), the evidence established the
following.
1.
evidence.
On September 13,
2004, two deputies sheriff on patrol in a marked vehicle observed a 1980's
model Mercedes with an expired
registration tag. Defendant Crist
appeared to be the sole occupant of the Mercedes. When the officers put on their overhead lights, Crist kept going
and eventually turned into a residential driveway. Crist got out of the car, ignored the officers' command to stop,
ran through the house and into the backyard.
The homeowner, who knew Crist, let the officers go through the
house. They found him hiding in a
backyard shed.
Asked why he had run,
Crist said he had not been reporting to his parole officer and he was pretty
sure there was a warrant out for his arrest.
He said the Mercedes and everything in it belonged to him.
car, but that he had registered it in the name of his 16-year-old daughter
because â€
| Description | A decision Jury misconduct or bias. |
| Rating |
© 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory
Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.
