People v. Ciervo CA5

Filed 7/16/14 P. v. Ciervo CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, F067007

v. (Super. Ct. No. BF145339A)

SKYLAR BLU CIERVO, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Steven M. Katz, Judge. Rex Adam Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Hokans and J. Robert Jibson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

 Before Levy, Acting P.J., Kane, J., and Poochigian, J.

Defendant Skylar Blu Ciervo was convicted by jury trial of possession of ammunition by a convicted felon (Pen. Code, § 30305, subd. (a)(1)).1 The trial court found true an allegation that defendant had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced him to prison for three years, plus a one-year enhancement for the prior prison term. On appeal, he contends the evidence was insufficient to support the prior prison term finding because the prosecutor offered only computer printouts of court docket entries, entitled “REGISTER OF ACTIONS/DOCKET,” from the Kern County CJIS (Criminal Justice Information System). We conclude the docket entries constituted substantial evidence that defendant served the prior prison term. Thus, we affirm. BACKGROUND After the jury rendered a verdict and was excused, the prosecutor offered certified court dockets as proof of defendant’s prior prison term. The following occurred:

“[PROSECUTOR]: Your Honor, if the Court would take judicial notice of evidence that has been marked People’s [exhibits] 5 through 10, certified booking photos and certified court dockets. The booking photos each correspond to a docket. Within those certified dockets, there’s an entry that reflects that the defendant was sentenced to two years [in] prison. And there’s a presumption under Evidence Code Section 664 that took place…. [¶] … [¶]