P. v. Peredo
Filed 6/13/06 P. v. Peredo 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. JUAN PEREDO, Defendant and Appellant. | B182218 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA077046) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Arthur M. Lew, Judge. Affirmed.
John E. Meyers for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Robert F. Katz and Michael J. Wise, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * * * * *
Juan Peredo appeals from the judgment entered upon his conviction by jury of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and attempted carjacking (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 215, subd. (a)), with true findings on the criminal street gang enhancement allegations (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)). Appellant was sentenced to the midterm of 3 years in state prison on the robbery conviction, plus 10 years for the true finding on the gang allegation. He was given a concurrent seven-year, six-month term for his conviction on the attempted carjacking, including five years on the gang enhancement.[1]
Appellant contends (1) the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of the prosecution's gang expert, and (2) there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's true findings on the gang enhancements. We affirm.
FACTS
Prosecution's Case
At 2:00 a.m. on October 25, 2003, Javier Mireles left work at a nightclub in the city of Carson. As Mireles warmed up the engine of his pickup truck parked about 25 feet away from the entrance to the club, he saw two men standing at the entrance. Appellant and another man crossed the street and approached the men and began talking. Then appellant and his cohort approached the driver's side of Mireles's truck. Appellant pointed a gun at Mireles and said, â€
