People v. Rosemond CA3

Filed 3/27/15 P. v. Rosemond CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C074674

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 12F06434)

v.

DEMAR RUDY ROSEMOND,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Demar Rudy Rosemond guilty of possession of methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a).) The trial court later found true allegations that defendant was previously convicted of three serious or violent felonies (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (e)(2)(C), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(C)). Defendant moved the court to strike a prior strike conviction; his motion was denied. The trial court then sentenced defendant to a term of 25 years to life in state prison. Defendant’s sole claim on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting impeachment evidence of his prior convictions for voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (a)) and attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187). We conclude that defendant has forfeited this claim. Accordingly, we affirm.

1

DISCUSSION Defendant contends that voluntary manslaughter is “not necessarily a crime of moral turpitude” and therefore inadmissible for impeachment purposes. He also argues the court abused its discretion in refusing to sanitize his prior convictions because the convictions were remote in time, not helpful in evaluating his honesty, too dissimilar from the current crimes with which he was charged, and highly prejudicial. Defendant, however, failed to preserve these contentions for appeal because he did not raise them below. (People v. Marks (2003) 31 Cal.4th 197, 228 [specific grounds for objecting to admission of prior convictions for impeachment were forfeited because they were not raised at trial].) As noted in defendant’s opening brief, defendant “moved in limine to identify whether the prosecution intended to impeach [defendant] with prior convictions” (italics added), and the People moved to impeach defendant with three specific convictions, a 1990 attempted robbery, a 1992 voluntary manslaughter, and a 1992 attempted murder. Defendant filed no written opposition to this motion and offered no oral argument at the hearing on the motion. Defendant’s only reference to impeachment evidence is in his own trial brief, and it fails to raise any of these specific claims: “In the event defendant elects to testify, he will seek exclusion of any mention of his prior conduct or convictions pursuant to People v. Castro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 301. Only crimes of moral turpitude are admissible for impeachment. The court must then weigh prejudice against probative value. (Evid. Code, § 352.) Courts should be guided by such factors as remoteness or recency, similarity between the prior offense and the current charges, and whether impeachment will influence the defendant’s decision to testify. [Citations.] “The prosecution has not indicated whether it desires to impeach defendant using any alleged prior convictions, charges or conduct. If the People intend to introduce any