People v. Carr CA2/8

Filed 9/26/14 P. v. Carr CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B252983

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA122996) v.

QUINTON CARR,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Paul A. Bacigalupo, Judge. Affirmed.

Linn Davis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey and David Zarmi, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

**********

The sole issue presented is whether the trial court abused its sentencing discretion. In June 2012, defendant and appellant Quinton Carr was on probation for a felony conviction of carrying a concealed weapon when he entered a no contest plea to one count of robbery in this case. Defendant agreed to plead to the robbery charge in return for a low-term sentence of two years in state prison, to run concurrent with the sentence on the probation violation. As part of the plea agreement, defendant was released on his own recognizance pending his sentencing hearing on the condition that if he failed to appear at sentencing, he could face the maximum terms on both the robbery and the probation violation. Defendant failed to appear at the July 2012 sentencing hearing. Defendant faced a new charge of murder and was eventually arrested, tried and acquitted of murder. In November 2013, a sentencing hearing was held on the robbery charge and the probation violation. The trial court imposed the maximum five-year eight-month prison term. Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the maximum term on both the robbery charge and the probation violation and in ordering consecutive terms. We find no sentencing error and therefore affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND We summarize the facts contained in the probation report. In April 2012, defendant walked up to the victim, to whom we refer in this opinion as P.O., while he was standing in line at a market, and ripped a necklace from his neck. The necklace was a gift with a value of almost $2,000 and P.O. chased after defendant to try to get it back. P.O. was knocked down by a second unknown male, but P.O. saw defendant jump into a green four-door Lexus sedan. P.O. wrote down the license plate number as the car fled the scene. Surveillance video captured these events. Los Angeles Police Department officers later located defendant driving the Lexus based on the information obtained from P.O. Defendant was detained wearing the same clothes pictured in the surveillance video. He did not have the necklace on him, but the police recovered $550 from his pocket. Thereafter, P.O. identified defendant in a