P. v. Thomas
Filed 6/27/07 P. v. Thomas 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. JEFFREY THOMAS, Defendant and Appellant. | B182332 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA061878) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Gary J. Ferrari, Judge. Affirmed.
Thomas T. Ono, 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, Victoria B. Wilson and Herbert S. Tetef, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
______________
A jury found defendant Jeffrey Thomas guilty of second degree murder with the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon, a knife. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 12022, subd. (b)(1).)[1] Defendant admitted that he had served two separate prison terms for a felony. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).) The trial court sentenced him to a term in state prison consisting of 15 years to life for the murder, enhanced by three consecutive one-year terms for the use of the knife and for the service of separate prison terms. On appeal from the judgment, defendant contends that (1) the refusal to grant a second-day-of-trial request for representation by retained counsel deprived him of his constitutional rights to counsel and to due process, (2) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction of second degree murder, and (3) the trial court erred by failing to define the intentional act referred to in CALJIC No. 8.31, concerning the elements of implied-malice murder.
Defendant's contentions are unpersuasive, and we affirm the judgment.
THE FACTS
I. The Prosecution's Case-in-Chief
At trial, Jonathan Burger testified that there was a large group of â€
