P. v. Johnson
Filed 2/10/06 P. v. Johnson 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSEPH ATILANO JOHNSON, Defendant and Appellant. | E036424 (Super.Ct.No. SWF004055) O P I N I O N |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Mark Ashton Cope, Judge. Affirmed in part and reversed in part with directions.
Sharon M. Jones, 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, Kevin R. Vienna and Anthony Da Silva, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
Defendant was convicted by a jury of unlawfully taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851; count 1), unlawfully receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a); count 2),[1] and actively participating in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a); count 3). The jury further found that the offense in count 1 was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) and that defendant had one prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)), two prior strike convictions (§ 667, subds. (c) & (e)), and two prison priors (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court struck one of defendant's two prison priors, denied defendant's motion to strike one of his two prior strike convictions, and sentenced defendant to 63 years to life.[2] Defendant appeals.[3]
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS
A. Crawford[4] Claim
Defendant contends that the trial court erroneously admitted hearsay statements of an unavailable witness that, contrary to the trial court's ruling, did not qualify under the â€