People v. Saelee CA5
Filed 7/12/16 P. v. Saelee 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F070259 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Merced Super. Ct. No. v. CRM027776)
RICKY SOU SAELEE, JR., OPINION Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Marc A. Garcia, Judge. Janet J. Gray, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Hokan and Clara M. Levers, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-
* Before Kane, Acting P.J., Peña, J. and Smith, J.
Appellant Ricky Sou Saelee, Jr., appeals his convictions for attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 664)1 and second degree robbery (§ 211), both of which included an enhancement for intentionally and personally discharging a firearm causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53), two enhancements for previous serious or violent felony convictions (§ 667), and two enhancements for prior prison terms (§ 667.5). Appellant was also convicted of assault with a firearm (§ 245), including enhancements for two convictions for serious or violent felonies (§ 667) and two prior prison terms (§ 667.5), as well as being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800), with enhancements for one prior serious or violent felony conviction (§ 667) and two prior prison terms (§ 667.5). Appellant alleges there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict of guilty on the attempted murder and robbery counts. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In the time around May 6, 2013, Allen Butler was homeless and living out of his Chevy Suburban truck. Suffering from schizophrenia, Mr. Butler took several medications to control his condition, including the drug Seroquel which helped him sleep. He had also been prescribed marijuana and regularly took the drug as a sleep aid, although his medical marijuana card had expired at the time. Mr. Butler was acquainted with a woman named Amanda Barrera. Ms. Barrera is a methamphetamine addict. Around May 6, 2013, Ms. Barrera was in the midst of a three-day methamphetamine binge. She had taken methamphetamine throughout the day of May 5, and had not slept in approximately three days. At approximately 11:00 p.m. on May 5, 2013, Ms. Barrera was walking to a friend’s house to use the phone. Having found the lights in her friend’s house were out, and believing her friend was not home, Ms. Barrera noticed that Mr. Butler’s truck was parked nearby. She approached and asked Mr. Butler if she could use his phone.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)