P. v. Martinez
Filed 4/21/06 P. v. Martinez CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 TWO
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILSON AMADEO MARTINEZ, Defendant and Appellant. | B180646 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA257878 consol. with BA256475) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Norm Shapiro, Judge. Affirmed.
Ted E. Thompson for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters and Susan Sullivan Pithey, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
______________
Wilson Amadeo Martinez appeals from the judgment entered upon his conviction by jury of one count of assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2))[1] and one count of discharging a firearm with gross negligence (§ 246.3), both counts arising from a shooting at the Safari Nightclub. The jury found to be true, as to the assault count, the personal use of a firearm allegation within the meaning of section 12022.5, subdivision (a)(1).[2] In a consolidated matter, the jury found appellant not guilty of seven counts, relating to a shooting at Leonardo's Nightclub. The trial court sentenced appellant to an aggregate state prison term of 14 years. Appellant contends that he was denied a fair trial by virtue of the prosecution's improper withholding of critical information until after the hearing on its motion to consolidate the two cases and after commencement of trial.
We affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Leonardo's Nightclub Shooting
On November 8, 2003, at approximately 1:30 a.m., appellant and three or four companions attempted to leave Leonardo's Nightclub with drinks in hand. Teodoro Ramos Hernandez (Ramos), Victor Cantero (Victor), and his father, Gabriel Cantero (Gabriel), uniformed security guards at Leonardo's, stopped them and told them they could not leave with drinks.
One of appellant's companions was talking with Ramos. Appellant began arguing with Gabriel, and a physical altercation began. Victor got between Gabriel and appellant, and told appellant that all they wanted were the beers. Appellant stated: â€
