People v. Leon CA2/2

Filed 7/3/14 P. v. Leon CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B244143

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SA072260) v.

CARLOS LEON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. James R. Dabney, Judge. Affirmed.

Corona & Peabody and Jennifer Peabody, 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, Scott A. Taryle and Tannaz Kouhpainezhad, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

******

Appellant Carlos Leon appeals from the judgment entered upon his conviction by jury of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a),1 count 1), attempted murder (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a), count 2), and shooting at an inhabited dwelling (§ 246, count 3). The jury also found true firearm allegations as to all counts (§ 12022.53, subds. (b)-(d)), and a great bodily injury allegation (§ 12022.7, subd. (b)) as to count 2. The trial court sentenced appellant to a mandatory term of 75 years to life in state prison, plus a life term. Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion and violated his right to due process when it denied his motion to sever the murder count from the remaining charges. Appellant also seeks review of the trial court’s in camera hearing pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess). We find no abuse of discretion or due process violation. Additionally, we find no abuse of discretion with respect to the in camera hearing. We affirm the judgment. FACTUAL SUMMARY Prosecution Case The Magallanes Shooting (Counts 2 and 3) On October 31, 2008, Maria Guadalupe Magallanes lived with her husband, her sister, and her mother on Coolidge Street in Los Angeles. Magallanes had a son named Arnulfo, who went by the nickname “Ernie.” Appellant and Ernie worked together at UCLA where they became friends. Appellant visited Ernie on a number of occasions while Ernie lived at his parents’ home on Coolidge Street. Appellant sometimes brought an animal with him when he visited. Magallanes referred to the animal as a “rat.” At approximately 9:00 p.m., Magallanes was in the kitchen washing dishes when she heard a knock on the door. Magallanes believed it was children trick-or-treating and opened the door. Five people wearing “rabbit” masks were standing at the door. One of them said, “Is Ernie home?” Magallanes recognized appellant’s voice. Magallanes said that Ernie was not at the house. Appellant asked, “Are you Ernie’s mom?” and then said