P. v. Williams

Filed 8/9/06 P. v. Williams 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 San Bernardino County. J. Michael Gunn, Judge. Affirmed as modified.

John L. Dodd, 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, Pamela Ratner Sobeck, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, David Delgado-Rucci and Christopher P. Beesley, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant LaTasha Williams was in a car with Steven Jackson and Shuron Carroll when someone in the car opened fire on a group of Hispanic youths, wounding two. Five eyewitnesses identified defendant as the shooter ‑‑ Jackson; Carroll; two of the victims; and a bystander, Timothy Harris. Defendant, however, maintained that Jackson was the shooter.

In this appeal, defendant's main contentions are that she was erroneously precluded from impeaching Harris with the fact that he had a juvenile adjudication for theft of a bicycle and impeaching Carroll with the fact that, before entering into a plea bargain that required him to testify against defendant, he was facing charges that carried a sentence of up to life in prison. She also asserts a number of sentencing errors.

The People concede that the enhancements under Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivisions (b) and (c) are erroneous and must be stricken. The People also concede that the abstract of judgment erroneously reflects enhancements under Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (e) and must be corrected. We agree. We find no other error. Hence, we will modify the judgment, which will reduce the determinate portion of the sentence by two years, and we will direct the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment. Otherwise, we will affirm.

I

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Summary of the Prosecution Witnesses' Testimony.

On August 24, 2001, around 3:30 p.m., there was a confrontation between a Hispanic group and a Black group at Cypress Park in Ontario. Cypress Park was in the territory of Onterio Varrio Sur (OVS), which was a Hispanic gang and the largest gang in Ontario.

The Black group consisted of Steven Jackson, Shuron Carroll, and defendant. Jackson and Carroll were at the park to spend some time with Jackson's girlfriend and a second girl. Defendant had driven them there, because she had a permit; Jackson and Carroll did not have driver's licenses and did not know how to drive. She was driving a black, two-door Honda Civic.

The Hispanic group consisted of Domingo Celis, his brother Paul Celis, and their friend Francisco Gonzalez. They were walking past the park on their way to visit Domingo and Paul's sister. According to gang experts, Domingo and Paul were members of OVS.

When the Black group left the park, defendant was driving; Carroll was in the front passenger seat, and Jackson was in the back. Just as the Honda was leaving the parking lot, it halted in the driveway, blocking the path of the Hispanic group. Carroll got out and confronted the Hispanic group. Jackson got out, too, â€