People v. Cordova CA2/8

Filed 2/14/14 P. v. Cordova CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B248017

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA093655) v.

BRANDON X. CORDOVA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Bruce F. Marrs, Judge. Affirmed.

Ava R. Stralla, 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, Steven D. Matthews and Herbert S. Tetef, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

**********

This is the second appeal by defendant and appellant Brandon X. Cordova following trial and conviction on two counts of assault with a firearm and two counts of making criminal threats. In the first appeal, defendant challenged his conviction, asserting both evidentiary and sentencing errors. In an unpublished decision, we affirmed defendant’s conviction, but reversed for a new sentencing hearing, concluding there had been sentencing error pursuant to Penal Code section 654 (People v. Cordova (Oct. 11, 2012, B235226) (Cordova I).) On remand, the trial court held a new sentencing hearing and imposed an aggregate state prison term of 16 years 4 months. Defendant brings this second appeal on the grounds the court committed prejudicial error by failing to state its reasons on the record for imposing consecutive sentences on the two assault counts. We conclude any failure by the trial court to adequately state the reasons for its sentencing choices was harmless, and therefore affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND We refer to the factual summary set forth in Cordova I, setting forth only those facts germane to our discussion of the limited issue presented by this appeal. Defendant was charged with two counts of assault with a firearm in violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(2) (counts 1 and 2), and two counts of making criminal threats in violation of section 422 (counts 3 and 4). It was also specially al leged, as to all four counts, that defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of the offenses within the meaning of section 12022.5, subdivision (a).1 Defendant pled not guilty and denied the special allegations. (Cordova I, supra, B235266, pp. 2-3.) The charges against defendant arose from an incident that occurred on March 14, 2011, when defendant and his accomplice, Placeres, confronted two minor victims (15- year-old twin brothers), who were walking home from school. Defendant and Placeres