People v. Sho CA2/6

Filed 5/18/21 P. v. Sho CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B303131 (Super. Ct. No. 16F-04609) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

MONSURU WOLE SHO,

Defendant and Appellant.

Monsuru Wole Sho appeals the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of resisting an executive officer by force or violence (Pen. Code,1 § 69, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced him to eight months in state prison and ordered the term to run consecutively to a three-year prison sentence he was already serving in another case for kidnapping and robbery. Appellant raises claims of evidentiary and sentencing error. We shall order that the abstract of judgment be modified to reflect that a court

All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless 1

otherwise stated.

operations assessment (§ 1465.8) and a conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373) were not imposed. Otherwise, we affirm. STATEMENT OF FACTS On the afternoon of May 5, 2016, California Highway Patrol Officer Douglas Patterson was on patrol when he saw a vehicle traveling at a speed of approximately 85 miles per hour in a 55 miles-per-hour zone. Officer Patterson activated his lights and effected a traffic stop. Appellant was the driver of the vehicle and Michelle Harmon was sitting in the front passenger seat. The officer explained the reason for the stop and asked appellant for his driver’s license. Appellant identified himself as “Michael Sho” and said he has a driver’s license in Africa but not in the United States. He also claimed he did not have his wallet. Officer Patterson asked appellant to exit his vehicle and walk with him to his patrol car. After appellant complied, the officer asked him to write down his name, address, and date of birth. Officer Patterson then asked appellant how old he was. Appellant gave conflicting information about his date of birth, which led the officer to believe he might have provided a false identification. Officer Patterson told appellant to wait by the patrol car while he went to talk to Harmon, who was still sitting in the front passenger seat of appellant’s vehicle. When the officer approached Harmon, he saw a man’s wallet in a woman’s purse that was open and on the floorboard in front of Harmon. Officer Patterson asked Harmon to hand him the wallet and she complied. After the officer obtained the wallet, appellant’s demeanor changed and the officer had to repeatedly tell him to go back to the patrol car. Inside the wallet, Officer Patterson found