People v. Godoy CA4/3
Filed 8/18/14 P. v. Godoy CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, G048646
v. (Super. Ct. No. 12WF1631)
CARLOS ENRIQUE GODOY, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Richard F. Toohey, Judge. Affirmed as modified. Patricia J. Ulibarri, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Randall Einhorn and Quisteen S. Shum, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Carlos Enrique Godoy was convicted of kidnapping with the intent to commit rape (Pen. Code, § 209, subd. (b)(1), count 1),1 kidnapping as a lesser offense of kidnapping for robbery (§ 209, subd. (b)(1), count 2), assault with the intent to commit rape (§ 220, subd. (a), count 3), and robbery (§ 211, count 4). The trial court later granted the prosecution’s motion to dismiss count 2 and sentenced Godoy to life in prison. On appeal, Godoy argues the trial court violated section 654 by imposing separate punishment on count 3 (assault with the intent to commit rape) and on count 1 (kidnapping with the intent to commit rape). He asserts the evidence shows counts 1 and count 3 were committed for a single intent and objective, i.e., committing rape. We agree and modify the judgment to stay the concurrent four year term on count 3. We affirm the judgment in all other respects. FACTS At the time of the incident, V.R. lived in Garden Grove, close to her employment at the Venus Sports Lounge (Venus) on Beach Boulevard (Beach). One evening in June 2012, V.R.’s fiancée drove her home from work because she had been drinking. She left her car at Venus. After arguing with her fiancée, V.R. decided at 1 a.m. to walk to Venus and retrieve her car. As V.R. approached a gas station on Beach, she saw Bernard Peters. V.R. knew Peters through their mutual friend, Tiffany Brewer. Peters offered to give V.R. a ride to her car, however, V.R. declined because she did not know Peters very well, and she did not trust him enough to get into a vehicle with him. After declining Peters’s offer for a ride, V.R. continued running west down Beach. On her way, V.R. either called, or received a call from Brewer. V.R. started walking as she spoke with Brewer. When V.R. walked across a river bed on
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)