People v. Wilson CA2/3

Filed 12/20/13 P. v. Wilson CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE, B241925

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA121164) v.

LUCIOUS WILSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Roger Ito, Judge. Affirmed. Kevin D. Sheehy, 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, Assistant Attorney General, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr. and Robert C. Schneider, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________

Lucious Wilson appeals from the judgment entered following his convictions by jury on count 1 – assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) and count 2 – exhibiting a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 417.8, subd. (a)), with admissions he suffered a prior felony conviction (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (d)) and a prior serious felony conviction (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a)), and served two prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).1 The court sentenced appellant to prison for 13 years. We affirm the judgment. FACTUAL SUMMARY Viewed in accordance with the usual rules on appeal (People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206), the evidence, the sufficiency of which is undisputed, established that on August 11, 2011, Evelia Castanon worked at a McDonald’s restaurant in Lakewood. She phoned Valerie Valdez, the manager, and told her appellant, Castanon’s boyfriend, was following Castanon. Castanon arrived at work and told Valdez that she was leaving appellant because he was abusive and she was obtaining a restraining order. Valdez testified Castanon told her that something bad was going to happen and that appellant had said “it’s going to be over today.” Appellant entered the restaurant. Castanon went to the back of the restaurant. Appellant told customers they needed to leave because something bad was going to happen. Valdez called 911. She was standing near an opening near the registers. Appellant shoved her to go past her. Appellant said he wanted to talk to Castanon, she had made him homeless, he did not want to hurt anyone, and he was only going to hurt himself. Edward Romero was working at a cash register in the restaurant. Romero grabbed appellant from behind and held him around the waist. Appellant pulled out a knife and Valdez told Romero to release appellant because he had a knife. Romero released appellant and backed up, and appellant said something to the customers. Appellant then