People v. Roggero CA5

Filed 2/11/15 P. v. Roggero CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, F067482 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. CRM023445, v. CRM022958, & CRM021351)

ANDREW GARDNER ROGGERO, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Mark Bacciarini, Judge. John Doyle, 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, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Daniel B. Bernstein and Alice Su, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Franson, Acting P.J., Peña, J. and Smith, J.

PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Appellant, Andrew Gardner Roggero, was charged in a second amended information filed on November 14, 2012, with second degree burglary (Pen. Code,1 § 459, count 1), two counts of grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a), counts 2 & 3), arson (§ 451, subd. (d), count 4), vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a), count 5), and receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a), count 6). The second amended information further alleged that appellant committed the offenses while released on bail (§ 12022.1, subd. (b)) and was eligible for two prior prison term enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).2 On November 14, 2012, appellant waived his constitutional rights pursuant to Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238 and In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122 (Boykin/Tahl) and admitted the allegations in case No. CRM022958. On that date, the trial court denied a suppression motion filed by the appellant challenging the collection of evidence in the instant action. After a recess, appellant waived his Boykin/Tahl rights and admitted all of the allegations in the second amended information except for the arson allegation in count 4. A jury trial on the arson allegation began on January 23, 2013. At the close of the prosecution’s case, the trial court denied appellant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to section 1118.1. The jury convicted appellant of arson on January 25, 2013.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 On September 20, 2012, appellant was charged in an information in Merced Superior Court case No. CRM022958, an unrelated action, with possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359). The information further alleged that he was eligible for two prior prison term enhancements. The instant action began as a single grand theft allegation in criminal complaint filed in February 2012, in case No. CRM021351. On October 11, 2012, the trial court granted the prosecutor’s motion to consolidate this action with the possession of marijuana case and case No. CRM021351 with the instant action.