California Court of Appeal Jul 6, 2016 No. D068732Unpublished
Filed 7/6/16 P. v. Cohen CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D068732, D069318
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. Nos. SCD245230, SCD245562) RONALD JAY COHEN,
Defendant and Appellant.
CONSOLIDATED APPEALS from a judgment of the Superior Court of San
Diego County, Kenneth K. So, Judge. Affirmed.
Athena Shudde, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Ronald Jay Cohen appeals after a jury found him guilty of attempted premeditated
On November 30, 2012, Montay Price gave Cohen and Morris a ride. When Price
parked the vehicle, Cohen showed him a pistol and threatened to kill him if he did not
cooperate. Over a period of several days, Cohen made further threats and forced Price to
deposit checks in Price's account and provide Cohen with cash. The checks were drawn
on an account with insufficient funds. Cohen threatened to kill Price's family if Price
called the police. Cohen ultimately demanded Price's car keys and took the car by
threatening him with a gun. When police tried to stop Price's vehicle, Cohen evaded
officers and eventually fled.
In mid-December 2012, Cohen responded to Luis Espinoza's Craigslist
advertisement for the sale of a BMW vehicle. When Espinoza met with Cohen at a
location Cohen had represented was his home, Cohen directed Espinoza to fill out
paperwork transferring title to the vehicle and threatened Espinoza with a knife and gun.
Cohen hit Espinoza in the head several times with the gun. Cohen had entered the
apartment where he met with Espinoza without permission.
4
Later that month, Terry King gave Cohen and another male a ride. Cohen pointed
a gun at King, told King he needed to use the car to get money, and traded places with
King in the driver's seat. They picked up another male passenger. From that point, the
men, other than King, engaged in a series of crimes, including robbery, burglary and
petty theft. The men severely assaulted King, choked him until he was unconscious, and
bound his hands and legs with duct tape. The three men eventually left King unconscious
in a ditch. When King awoke, he contacted the police who ultimately apprehended
Cohen.
A jury convicted Cohen as charged and found all special allegations true. After
the trial court pronounced sentence and Cohen filed his notice of appeal, he requested
that the trial court recall his sentence because the court did not state its reasons for
imposing consecutive terms. The trial court resentenced Cohen, imposing two
consecutive life terms with the possibility of parole consecutive to 24 years six months in
prison. The court also imposed a consecutive term of one year in county jail for the
conviction of receiving stolen property, a misdemeanor. In imposing the consecutive
sentences, the court reasoned that Cohen had independent objectives in committing the
crimes, the crimes involved separate acts of violence, and the crimes occurred at different
times and places. Cohen filed a second notice of appeal following the resentencing. We
consolidated the cases.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, Cohen's appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to
Wende, requesting that we conduct an independent review of the record to determine
5
whether there are any arguable appellate issues. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Under
Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, she listed as possible but not arguable issues, whether
(1) there was sufficient evidence that Cohen personally used enough force on King to
have personally caused great bodily injury; (2) the trial court erred in instructing the jury
with a portion of CALCRIM No. 3160, providing that the jury could find personal
infliction of bodily injury if the physical force Cohen used on King was sufficient in
combination with force used by others to cause King to suffer great bodily injury; (3) the
trial court properly denied Cohen's new trial motion on the ground that his counsel was
ineffective for failing to present the testimony of Cohen's family members to contradict
Price's testimony; (4) the trial court properly imposed multiple great bodily injury
enhancements attached to divisible offenses occurring during the same ongoing incident;
(5) the trial court improperly imposed full three-year great bodily injury enhancements on
both life terms for premeditated attempted murder of King and kidnapping King during a
carjacking; and (6) the trial court should have stayed one of the life terms it imposed on
Cohen's convictions for attempted murder and kidnapping during carjacking. We granted
Cohen permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.
We have examined the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and
Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, and considered the possible issues referred to by appointed
counsel. We find no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has
represented Cohen on this appeal.
6
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
IRION, J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
MCDONALD, J.
7
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's convictions and sentence after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and Anders v. California, finding no arguable appellate issues.
Issues
Whether there was sufficient evidence of personal infliction of great bodily injury.
Whether the trial court erred in its jury instructions regarding personal infliction of bodily injury.
Whether the trial court properly denied a new trial motion based on ineffective assistance of counsel.
Whether the trial court properly imposed multiple enhancements and consecutive sentences.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We find no arguable issues and affirm the judgment.”
“We have examined the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, and considered the possible issues referred to by appointed counsel. We find no reasonably arguable appellate issue.”