People v. Perez CA2/2

Filed 4/30/14 P. v. Perez CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B246943

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA097415) v.

DAVID CONSTANTINO PEREZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Mike Camacho, Judge. Affirmed.

James M. Crawford, 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, Victoria B. Wilson and Erika D. Jackson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant David Constantino Perez (defendant) appeals from his carjacking conviction, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding that he took the victim’s car from her immediate presence. We conclude the conviction is supported by substantial evidence and we affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND Procedural history After an altercation and the taking of Jasmine Limon’s (Limon) automobile, defendant was charged with: count 1, carjacking in violation of Penal Code section 215, subdivision (a);1 count 2, dissuading a witness, in violation of section 136.1, subdivision (b)(1); count 3, possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of section 29800, subdivision (a)(1); count 4, possession of ammunition by a felon in violation of section 30305, subdivision (a)(1); count 5, battery against his child’s parent in violation of section 243, subdivision (e)(1); and count 6, misdemeanor battery, in violation of section 242. The information also alleged that defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of count 1, within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (b). As to the felony counts it was alleged that for purposes of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), defendant had suffered a prior serious or violent felony conviction or juvenile adjudication. The same prior conviction was alleged under section 667, subdivision (a)(1), and as a one-year prison prior for purposes of section 667.5, subdivision (b). A jury found defendant guilty of counts 1, 3, 4, and 5, as charged, and not guilty of counts 2 and 6. The jury also found true the allegations that defendant had personally used a firearm in the commission of the carjacking, and in a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true the prior felony conviction. On January 22, 2013, the trial court struck the prior strike conviction and the one-year prison prior pursuant to section 1385 and People v. Superior Court (Romero) 13 Cal.4th 497, for all but use as the five-year