P. v. Rivas
On October 5, 2005, a second amended information was filed against appellant Christopher Rivas and codefendant Daniel Vera. Appellant was charged with count I, assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury on Abel Martinez (Pen. Code,[1] 245, subd. (a)(1)), and count II, criminal threats on Jane Doe[2]( 422). Codefendant Vera was separately charged with count III, resisting an officer by force or violence ( 69). Appellant and codefendant Vera were both charged with count IV, active participation in a criminal street gang ( 186.22, subd. (a)).
As to count I, it was alleged appellant personally inflicted great bodily injury ( 12022.7, subd. (a)), and personally used a deadly weapon, a knife ( 12022, subd. (b)(1)). As to counts I and II, it was further alleged appellant committed the offenses for the benefit of a criminal street gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)); he suffered one prior serious felony conviction ( 667, subd. (a)); and he suffered one prior strike conviction ( 667, subds. (b)-(i)). Appellant pleaded not guilty and denied the special allegations.
At the preliminary hearing, the court dismissed the aggravated assault charge as to codefendant Vera. Vera subsequently pleaded guilty to misdemeanor resisting an officer ( 148, subd. (a)(1)) as a lesser offense of count III, and was placed on probation for two years.
On October 5, 2005, appellants jury trial began on counts I, II and IV; the court had bifurcated the prior conviction allegations. The court granted appellants motion for acquittal as to the great bodily injury enhancement.
On October 6, 2005, appellant was convicted of counts I, II, and IV, and the jury found he personally used a knife in the commission of count I, and counts I and II were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. Appellant admitted the truth of the prior conviction allegations.
On February 10, 2006, the court sentenced appellant to an aggregate term of 14 years in state prison: as to count I, the upper term of four years, doubled to eight years as the second strike term, with consecutive terms of one year for the personal use enhancement, and five years for the gang enhancements. The court imposed concurrent second strike terms of six years for counts II and IV, with a concurrent term of five years for the gang enhancement as to count II.
On February 21, 2006, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. The trial court is directed to prepare and serve as appropriate an amended abstract of judgment reflecting the foregoing modifications.
Comments on P. v. Rivas