People v. Gonzales CA2/7

Filed 11/5/13 P. v. Gonzales CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

THE PEOPLE, B242748

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA114826) v.

GERALD LUIS GONZALES,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Robert J. Higa, Judge. Affirmed. John A. Colucci, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Kimberley J. Baker-Guillemet, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________

INTRODUCTION

A jury convicted defendant Gerald Luis Gonzales of the first degree murder of Gerald Ramirez (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and possession of a firearm by a felon (id., § 12021, subd. (a)(1)). The jury also found true the allegations that Gonzales personally used a firearm (id., § 12022.53, subd. (b)), personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, causing great bodily injury and death (id., § 12022.53, subds. (c) & (d)), committed the crime for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in association with a criminal street gang (id., § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)). After the trial court found true the allegations that Gonzales suffered two prior strike convictions (id., §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12), the court sentenced Gonzales to state prison for a total term of 110 years to life. Gonzales’ sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in failing to suppress statements he made to police during an interrogation. We conclude that the trial court did not err in denying Gonzales’ motion to suppress the statements, and affirm.