P. v. Contreras
Filed 4/21/06 P. v. Contreras CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RUBEN THOMAS CONTRERAS, Defendant and Appellant. |
F047366
(Super. Ct. No. 76446-01)
OPINION |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Darryl B. Ferguson, Judge.
Kyle Gee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, Lloyd G. Carter and Brian Alvarez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
After a jury trial, Ruben Thomas Contreras (appellant) was convicted of first degree murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a)),[1] residential robbery (§ 211), and residential burglary (§ 459). The jury found true the special circumstance allegations that the murder was committed during the commission of a burglary and robbery (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)), but found not true the personal arming allegation (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The trial court sentenced appellant to a six-year term on the residential robbery conviction and a consecutive indeterminate term of life without the possibility of parole on the murder conviction. A four-year term on the residential burglary conviction was imposed and stayed, as was a $2,000 restitution fine imposed pursuant to section 1202.45.
Appellant contends the trial court erred in: (1) failing to give a duress instruction, (2) failing to give a felony-murder special-circumstance instruction, (3) imposing a six-year term on his robbery conviction, and (4) imposing a fine pursuant to section 1202.45. We agree only with appellant's last contention and in all other respects affirm.
FACTS
On June 17, 2001, appellant, Carlos E., Jesse L., and Elena Rodriguez went to visit Kelly Hiser and April Crone at the Lindsay Motor Lodge, where they lived. Rodriguez testified that, while the group drank beer behind Hiser's carport, Michael Loveland, a mentally challenged man who also lived at the motel, was collecting cans and bottles nearby from the motel trash bins. Rodriguez bought cigarettes from Loveland, who mentioned that he had marijuana.
Rodriguez testified that, when Loveland left the carport, appellant said to the group, â€
