P. v. Rankins

Filed 2/24/06 P. v. Rankins CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Gordon R. Burkhart, Judge. Affirmed with directions.

Corinne S. Shulman, 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, Barry Carlton, Supervising

Deputy Attorney General, and Kristine A. Gutierrez, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

1. Introduction^[1]

In one week, defendant embarked on a drug-fueled crime spree in which he and an accomplice robbed two Pizza Huts, a Wienerschnitzel, and a Budget Rent A Car, using either a semiautomatic firearm or a revolver. He was charged with and convicted of 16 counts, including robbery, assault with a semiautomatic firearm, assault with a firearm, and possession of a firearm, plus related allegations of weapons use and prior convictions. The judge imposed an aggregate sentence of 287 years eight months to life.

On appeal, defendant argues the evidence did not support defendant's convictions for assault with a firearm or a semiautomatic firearm (counts 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 13) because there was no evidence of assault. He also asserts multiple sentencing challenges, some of which the People concede and some of which he concedes. Finally, defendant protests the court's imposition of the mandatory security fee of $20 under section 1465.8.

We affirm defendant's convictions on all counts but remand for resentencing and modification of judgment as set forth in our disposition below.

2. Sufficiency of Evidence

Defendant was convicted of six counts of assault with a firearm or a semiautomatic firearm, involving three victims in the first Pizza Hut robbery, one victim in the Wienerschnitzel robbery, and two victims in the second Pizza Hut robbery. Jeffrey Dawson, defendant's accomplice, was the principal in the Budget robbery. Except as mentioned here, more detailed facts are not necessary to resolving this appeal.

Penal Code section 240 defines assault as â€