Fear Not Law Articles: P.v . Coulson

P.v . Coulson

Filed 2/7/07 P.v . Coulson CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

DAVID LYNN COULSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

B189045

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. NA055138)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Gary J. Ferrari, Judge. Affirmed as modified.

Ronda G. Norris, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Shawn McGahey Webb, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________

The man who lived in an apartment returned home to find appellant burglarizing it. After a scuffle, appellant ran off with some of the man's property. Appellant was convicted of first degree burglary (count 1) and first degree robbery (count 2), with two prior strike convictions. He was sentenced to 35 years to life in prison, under the â€

Description	The man who lived in an apartment returned home to find appellant burglarizing it. After a scuffle, appellant ran off with some of the man's property. Appellant was convicted of first degree burglary (count 1) and first degree robbery (count 2), with two prior strike convictions. He was sentenced to 35 years to life in prison, under the "Three Strikes" law. On appeal, he contends: (1) There was insufficient evidence of robbery. (2) The trial court should have instructed on grand theft person as a lesser included offense of robbery. (3) The trial court abused its discretion when it refused to strike one of the prior convictions, under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero). (4) Imposition of concurrent sentences on counts 1 and 2 violated Penal Code section 654. (5) A $20 court security fee was improperly imposed, as the crime occurred prior to enactment of the statute authorizing the fee. Respondent agrees that count 1 must be stayed pursuant to section 654. Court stay that count, strike the security fee, and otherwise affirm.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.