People v. Hawkins CA2/8

Filed 6/8/15 P. v. Hawkins CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B254416

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA126746) v.

CORDELL HAWKINS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Arthur M. Lew, Judge. Affirmed as modified.

David L. Polsky, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Michael C. Keller and Rene Judkiewicz, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________

Defendant Cordell Hawkins appeals from a judgment following a jury trial in which he was convicted of first degree murder on an aiding and abetting theory. On appeal, he contends the evidence was insufficient to establish the intent element of aiding and abetting, in that he had not known his cohort would shoot the victim. We conclude the evidence is sufficient and affirm; we also modify the abstract of judgment to properly reflect the restitution fine imposed by the trial court.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On May 23, 2013, defendant and his two comrades, Marlon Williams and Darnell Snell, were charged by information with the murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) of Ashton Croswell. It was alleged that the offense was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang, within the meaning of Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b), and that a principal discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury or death, within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivisions (d) and (e)(1). Williams was tried separately; defendant and Snell were tried together, but with separate juries. Defendant was convicted as charged. The murder was found to be in the first degree. Defendant was sentenced to a term of 25 years to life for the murder with a consecutive term of 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement. At sentencing, the court imposed both victim restitution and a restitution fine; however, the restitution fine was omitted from the abstract of judgment. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.