People v. Vigil CA2/4

Filed 12/17/20 P. v. Vigil CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B298543

Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA117978 v.

AARON ANTHONY VIGIL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mike Camacho, Judge. Affirmed. William J. Capriola, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Acting Senior Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Steven E. Mercer Patterson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Aaron Vigil of three felon in possession of a firearm charges and one felon in possession of ammunition charge. The trial court sentenced Vigil to consecutive terms on the firearm convictions and a two-year term for the ammunition conviction to be served concurrently. On appeal, Vigil contends his concurrent term for the ammunition conviction should have been stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654 because he had a single intent and objective in possessing the firearms and ammunition.1 We disagree with Vigil and affirm.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Los Angeles County District Attorney filed a complaint charging Vigil with eight felony counts: three counts of felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); counts 3-5), one count of felon in possession of ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1); count 6); two counts of making criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a); counts 7 & 8); and two counts of threatening a public officer (§ 71; counts 9 & 10). Concerning all counts, the information alleged Vigil committed the acts for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in association with a criminal street gang with the specific intent to promote, further and assist in criminal conduct by gang members. (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A).) The complaint also alleged that Vigil suffered a prior conviction – a violation of section 245, subdivision (a)(1) in 2000 – that qualified as both a prior serious