People v. Corona CA3

Filed 5/22/14 P. v. Corona CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (El Dorado) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C073243

v. (Super. Ct. No. P12CRF0204)

SERGIO CORONA,

Defendant and Appellant.

After a domestic dispute with his girlfriend, defendant Sergio Corona entered the home of neighbors he did not know, threatened them and drove off in their car. About 20 or 30 minutes later, police chased the fleeing car and arrested defendant. A jury convicted defendant of first degree residential robbery, first degree residential burglary, criminal threats, unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle, and driving with willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property while evading an officer. The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate prison term of seven years eight months.

1

Although the trial court orally awarded 372 days of presentence credit (324 actual days and 48 conduct days), the abstract of judgment indicates an award of 48 actual days and 324 conduct days. Defendant now contends (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his lawyer did not request instructions on mistake of fact or voluntary intoxication, and (2) the abstract of judgment should be modified to accurately reflect the trial court’s oral award of presentence credit. We conclude defendant’s ineffective assistance claim lacks merit, but we will order correction of the abstract of judgment. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND At the time of the crimes, defendant lived in Pollock Pines with his girlfriend and her five children. Their baby was due any day. The girlfriend said defendant became increasingly upset that evening starting around 6:00 p.m., first yelling at one of the children and later cursing at her and throwing things. Defendant told her several times that he wanted to go back to Fresno, but they had no car. The girlfriend suggested he take a walk and return when he was calm. She did not see defendant drinking that day, but she thought he probably drank more than a bottle of wine and other liquor during the afternoon and evening. Dorothy and Rene Van Asten lived on the same street as defendant, but they had never met him. At around 7:30 p.m., the Van Astens were watching television when defendant walked into their house and said, “I want your car keys, and I don’t want to hurt you, but I have two guns in my back pocket, a .38 and a .45, and I’m ready to use them if I have to.” Defendant said he had just come from “up the street” where he had punched out a window and hurt his girlfriend. His knuckles were bloody and he acknowledged throwing something at his girlfriend, but he declined Rene’s offer to accompany him back to his own house to check on her. Instead, defendant insisted that he wanted their car to drive to Fresno, where his family lived.