People v. Rucker CA2/7

Filed 9/16/15 P. v. Rucker CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

THE PEOPLE, B256279

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA070942) v.

DARRELL RUCKER,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jesse I. Rodriguez, Judge. Affirmed. Alex Coolman, 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, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Mary Sanchez, and Zee Rodriguez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________

Darrell Rucker, Sr. was convicted of voluntary manslaughter for killing Malcolm Youngblood. In a previous appeal, this court determined that there had been insufficient evidence to support the court’s finding that Rucker had suffered a prior juvenile adjudication that qualified as a strike prior. (People v. Rucker (May 21, 2013, B237359) [nonpub. opn.].) Rucker appeals from his subsequent resentencing. We affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Darrell Rucker, Sr. shot and killed his nephew Malcolm Youngblood on July 10, 2006. He was tried and convicted of murder, but that conviction was reversed on appeal. (People v. Rucker (Dec. 15, 2009, B203503) [nonpub. opn.] (Rucker I).) At retrial, the prosecution presented evidence that Rucker shot Youngblood multiple times without provocation after Youngblood complained about a malfunctioning car that Rucker had sold him. (People v. Rucker (May 21, 2013, B237359) [nonpub. opn.] (Rucker II), at p. 2.) Rucker claimed that he acted in self-defense and to defend his son: Youngblood had threatened him and a mechanic friend days before the shooting, and on the morning of the shooting Youngblood threatened him again, leading to a moment when Rucker believed Youngblood was holding or was reaching for a weapon to shoot Rucker and Rucker’s son. (Ibid.) The jury was instructed on first degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter (heat of passion and imperfect self-defense), and justifiable homicide in self-defense or defense of another. (Id. at pp. 2-3.) Rucker was convicted of voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code,1 § 192, subd. (a)), and the jury found true the allegation that he personally used a firearm in the commission of the offense within the meaning of section 12022.5. He was sentenced to a term of 32 years in state prison: the upper term of 11 years for the voluntary manslaughter, doubled under the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), plus the consecutive upper term of 10 years for the firearm enhancement. He appealed his