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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ANTHONY MARTINEZ et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.
C049234
(Super. Ct. Nos. 03F01514, 03F04051)
As amended during trial, the consolidated information charged defendants Anthony Martinez and Edrick Brown with multiple felonies and enhancements in connection with a shooting on February 7, 2003, and a home invasion robbery on April 3, 2003. It charged both defendants with attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a) & 664 -- count one),[1]discharging a firearm at an occupied motor vehicle (§ 246 -- count two), assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b) -- count three), robbery (§ 211 -- count five), residential burglary (§ 459 -- count six), and assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b) -- count seven). The consolidated amended information also charged Martinez with receiving stolen property. (§ 496, subd. (a) -- count four.) Among the numerous enhancements, it alleged defendants committed the offenses alleged in counts one, two and three for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in association with a criminal street gang. (§ 186.22.) The jury found defendants guilty of all counts and found true all the special allegations. The court found true the special on-bail allegation. (§ 12022.1.) The court sentenced Martinez to an aggregate term of 31 years and eight months, and Brown to an aggregate term of 16 years plus 23 years to life.
On appeal, defendants argue they are entitled to reversal because: (1) the court abused its discretion in granting consolidation and denying severance; (2) the court abused its discretion in granting the prosecution leave to file an amended information to add a charge of attempted murder; (3) the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct; and (4) cumulative prejudice violated defendants' right to due process. We shall affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. The February 7, 2003, Shooting – Counts One Through Four:
Reyes Hernandez and his twin brother Raciel were friends with defendant Martinez in junior high school.[2] In high school, Reyes and Raciel became involved with the Sureño street gang. Martinez is a validated member of the rival Norteños gang. Reyes and Martinez had two fights in the ninth grade. Since that time, they had limited their antipathy to â€
Description
As amended during trial, the consolidated information charged defendants with multiple felonies and enhancements in connection with a shooting on February 7, 2003, and a home invasion robbery on April 3, 2003. It charged both defendants with attempted murder (Pen. Code, SS 187, subd. (a) and 664 count one), discharging a firearm at an occupied motor vehicle (S 246 count two), assault with a semiautomatic firearm (S 245, subd. (b) count three), robbery (S 211 -- count five), residential burglary (S 459 -- count six), and assault with a semiautomatic firearm (S 245, subd. (b) count seven). The consolidated amended information also charged Martinez with receiving stolen property. (S 496, subd. (a) -- count four.) Among the numerous enhancements, it alleged defendants committed the offenses alleged in counts one, two and three for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in association with a criminal street gang. (S 186.22.) The jury found defendants guilty of all counts and found true all the special allegations. The court found true the special on bail allegation. (S 12022.1.) The court sentenced Martinez to an aggregate term of 31 years and eight months, and Brown to an aggregate term of 16 years plus 23 years to life.
On appeal, defendants argue they are entitled to reversal because: (1) the court abused its discretion in granting consolidation and denying severance; (2) the court abused its discretion in granting the prosecution leave to file an amended information to add a charge of attempted murder; (3) the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct; and (4) cumulative prejudice violated defendants' right to due process. Court affirm the judgment.
