People v. Guerrero CA2/4

Filed 6/25/14 P. v. Guerrero CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B249729

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA074183) v.

MANUEL GUERRERO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David W. Stuart, Judge. Affirmed. Joy A. Maulitz, 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, Chung Mar and Jessica C. Owen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

A jury convicted defendant Manuel Guerrero of discharging a firearm with gross negligence (Pen. Code, § 246.3, subd. (a)1 (count 1), carrying a loaded firearm (§ 25850, subd. (a)) (count 2), and possession of a firearm by a felon with prior convictions (§ 29800, subd. (a) (count 3). Guerrero admitted five prior conviction (alleged pursuant to § 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced Guerrero to a total of seven years and eight months in state prison, consisting of seven years as to count 1 (a three-year base term plus one year for each of the prior convictions, with two prior convictions merging into one for sentencing purposes (§ 667.5, subd. (b)); plus an eight-month sentence on count 2, to run consecutively to the sentence in count 1. The court imposed a 16-month sentence on count 3 but ordered the sentence stayed pursuant to section 654. On appeal, Guerrero contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction on count 2 of carrying a loaded firearm, and that even if we disagree, the sentence on count 2 should be stayed pursuant to section 654 because there was no evidence of possession of a gun separate from his discharging a gun. Because we disagree with both contentions, we affirm.