P. v. Ros
Filed 2/15/07 P. v. RosCA5
NOT TO BEPUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court,rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinionsnot certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or orderedpublished for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OFAPPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATEDISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
PHEAKTRA ROS,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
F050098
(Super. Ct. No. F04906697-8)
O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. W. Kent Hamlin, Judge.
Richard Power, under appointment by the Court ofAppeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson,Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General,and Stan Cross and Susan Rankin Bunting, Deputy Attorneys General, forPlaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
______________________
*Before Wiseman, A.P.J., Levy, J., and Cornell, J.
A jury convicted appellant Pheaktra Ros of attempted murder (Pen. Code,§§ 187, subd. (a), 664; count 1),[1] discharging a firearm in a grossly negligentmanner (§ 243; count 2), and assault with a firearm (§245, subd. (a)(2); count 3). The jury found true allegations that (1) incommitting each offense appellant acted for the benefit of, at the directionof, and in association with a criminalstreet gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)); (2) in committing the count 1offense, he personally used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53,subdivision (b); and (3) in committing the count 3 offense, he personally useda firearm within the meaning of section 12022.5, subdivision (a)(1).
The court imposed a prison term of 27 years,consisting of the seven-year midterm on count 1 and ten years on the gang andfirearm-use enhancements accompanying that count. The court imposed concurrentterms on the remaining counts and enhancements.
On appeal, appellant contends the evidence wasinsufficient to support his attempted murder conviction. Specifically,appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as to one element of theoffense: the specific intent to kill the victim. We will affirm.
FACTS
There is no dispute that the evidence wassufficient to support the conclusion that shortly after midnight on September 26, 2004, at a party held in the backyard of the home Somphone Suphalek andhis wife, Lorraine Cruz, shared with Cruz's parents, appellant fired multipleshots from a handgun, and one of those shots, fired at close range, struckSuphalek.
Cruz testified she met appellant approximatelyone and one-half weeks prior to the party, at a gas station where Cruz wasdropping off a friend.[2] During a brief conversation, appellant stated he was a â€
| Description | A jury convicted appellant of attempted murder (Pen. Code,SS 187, subd. (a), 664; count 1), discharging a firearm in a grossly negligent manner (S 243; count 2), and assault with a firearm (S 245, subd. (a)(2); count 3). The jury found true allegations that (1) in committing each offense appellant acted for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in association with a criminal street gang (S 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)); (2) in committing the count 1offense, he personally used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53,subdivision (b); and (3) in committing the count 3 offense, he personally useda firearm within the meaning of section 12022.5, subdivision (a)(1). The court imposed a prison term of 27 years,consisting of the seven year midterm on count 1 and ten years on the gang and firearm use enhancements accompanying that count. The court imposed concurrent terms on the remaining counts and enhancements. On appeal, appellant contends the evidence was insufficient to support his attempted murder conviction. Specifically,appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as to one element of the offense: the specific intent to kill the victim. Court affirm. |
| Rating |
