legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Pott

P. v. Pott
05:24:2006

P. v. Pott




Filed 5/8/06 P. v. Pott CA2/7






NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 SEVEN














THE PEOPLE,


Plaintiff and Respondent,


v.


AMADO D. POTT,


Defendant and Appellant.



B182137


(Los Angeles County


Super. Ct. No. YA060215)



APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,


Andrew C. Kauffman, Judge. Affirmed as modified.


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, Lance E. Winters and Laura J. Hartquist, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


___________________________


A jury convicted Amado D. Pott of commercial burglary and grand theft of personal property. The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of six years in state prison. Pott appeals from the judgment and contends the trial court imposed an unauthorized sentence. We affirm the judgment as modified.


FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND


Rochelle Hawkins arrived at work one morning and found a broken office window and an unlocked front door. Computers and telephones were missing from the reception desk, doors were damaged, and the entire office was in disarray. Hawkins heard noises and encountered Pott carrying her office printer. Pott dropped the printer and fled through the back door. Hawkins recognized Pott, having seen him on several occasions in front of a nearby apartment complex. Police detained Pott as he was leaving the complex.


After waiving his constitutional rights (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694]) Pott admitted entering the office and removing the printer, but he denied breaking into the office. Pott told the police he took the printer only because he saw two other people leaving with computer equipment.


Pott was charged by amended information with two counts of commercial burglary (counts 1 and 2), petty theft with a prior theft-related conviction (count 3), and grand theft of personal property (count 4). (Pen. Code, §§ 459; 666; 487, subd. (a).) It was further alleged as to all counts that Pott had suffered a prior felony conviction within the meaning of the â€





Description A decision regarding commercial burglary and grand theft of personal property.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale