P. v. Trotter
Defendant Ramon D. Trotter appeals his conviction on all counts of a 10 count information arising out of two separate incidents (a freeway shooting and a beating in a parking lot) charging him with one count of murder (Penal Code, 187, subd. (a), 190.2, subd. (a)(21)), three counts of attempted murder ( 187, subd. (a), 664), three counts of shooting at an occupied vehicle ( 246), one count of robbery ( 211), one count of assault with likelihood of producing great bodily injury ( 245, subd. (a)(1)), and one count of battery with serious bodily injury ( 243, subd. (d)). The jury found true special allegations of a special circumstance on count one ( 190.2, subd. (a)(21)), a special allegation of a principals personal firearm discharge causing death or great bodily injury ( 12022.53, subds. (d), (e)(1)), and special allegations of a principals personal firearm discharge on the shooting at an occupied vehicle counts ( 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), (e)(1)). The jury also found true special allegations of personal infliction of great bodily injury on the robbery, assault and battery counts ( 12022.7, subd. (a)) and found true the gang allegations on all counts ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(a)). The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 126 years.
On appeal, defendant contends that (1) the prosecutions failure to timely disclose exculpatory evidence and the trial courts exclusion of such evidence at trial requires reversal; (2) the trial court erred in failing to sever counts one through seven (relating to the first incident) from counts eight through 10 (relating to the second incident); (3) there was insufficient evidence to sustain the great bodily injury enhancements on counts eight and nine; (4) the court erred in instructing pursuant to CALJIC No. 17.20, requiring reversal of the great bodily injury enhancements; (5) the imposition of a 25-year-to-life sentence for the vicarious personal use of a firearm, based upon the finding the crime was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang, violated defendants equal protection and due process rights; (6) the imposition of consecutive sentences on the assault counts (counts eight and nine) violated section 654; (7) all 10 counts were one, indivisible course of conduct and therefore subject to only one criminal street gang enhancement per incident; (8) the drive by special circumstance is unconstitutional; (9) the imposition of a $10,000 parole revocation fine was unauthorized and must be stricken, and (10) the imposition of consecutive sentences violated Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296. The People request Court correct the abstract of judgment to reflect the 657 days of presentence custody credits awarded, and impose an additional court security fee for each of the counts on which defendant was found guilty.
Comments on P. v. Trotter