People v. Gold CA3

Filed 12/30/13 P. v. Gold CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sutter)

THE PEOPLE, C070611

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF101157)

v.

MICHAEL SHAINE DWAYNE GOLD,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Michael Shaine Dwayne Gold guilty of the first degree murder of his stepfather Elmer Eugene McDonald (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a))1 and found true the special circumstance allegation that he perpetrated the murder by means of lying in wait (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(15)). The trial court sentenced defendant to life in prison without the possibility of parole and imposed a $7,000 restitution fine.

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

Defendant appeals, contending “[t]he special circumstance should be set aside because it is not clear that the jury made a true finding.” He also asserts “[t]he restitution fine should be reduced to $200 because of the absence of jury findings.” We shall conclude defendant forfeited both contentions by failing to raise them below, and in any event, the contentions lack merit. Accordingly, we shall affirm the judgment. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A detailed recitation of the facts is not required in light of the issues raised on appeal and our resolution of the same. Suffice it to say that substantial evidence was presented at trial that in November 2009, defendant slit his stepfather’s throat, dismembered his stepfather’s body, and attempted to dispose of the body parts in and around the Feather River. DISCUSSION I The Jury Found the Lying in Wait Special Circumstance to Be True Defendant contends that because the term “special circumstance” was not used in the verdict form, “on its face this verdict does not reflect that the jury found true the alleged special circumstance of lying in wait.” He further asserts that the defect in the verdict form was not cured by the jury instructions and was exacerbated by the prosecutor’s argument. We disagree. The verdict form signed by the jury foreman reads in pertinent part: “We, the jury, . . . find the Defendant GUILTY of . . . murder in the first degree, in that the killing was willful, deliberate, and premeditated or perpetrated by means of lying in wait, as charged in Count One of the information. “We, the jury, do further unanimously find that the murder was perpetrated by means of lying in wait.”