People v. Riley CA3

Filed 7/12/21 P. v. Riley CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C089437

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 18FE021988)

v.

WOODROW CLIFTON RILEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

Following a jury trial, defendant Woodrow Clifton Riley was found guilty of making criminal threats and admitted a prior strike allegation. On appeal, he contends: (1) insufficient evidence supports his conviction for making criminal threats; (2) the trial court erred by not instructing on the lesser included offense of attempted criminal threats; and (3) the minute order for the sentencing hearing and the abstract of judgment must be amended to show the court awarded defendant 149 days of presentence custody credit, not 148 days.

1

We agree with defendant regarding the custody credits. We otherwise affirm the judgment.

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS Defendant was charged with criminal threats in count one (Pen. Code, § 422 [statutory section citations that follow are found in the Penal Code, unless otherwise set forth]) and being a felon in possession of a firearm in count two (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)). It was further alleged that defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of count one (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) and that he had sustained a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i) and 1170.12). L.S. lived with her 17-year-old daughter, Z.W., and Z.W.’s two-year-old daughter. Z.W. had been dating defendant. L.S. had previously told both Z.W. and defendant that he was too old for her daughter and she did not want defendant in her home. When L.S. came home in the early morning hours on November 15, 2018, with some friends, she found defendant in her apartment with another man. L.S. woke up the other man, who was asleep on the couch, and told him to leave. L.S. then went upstairs to her daughter’s bedroom and found defendant and Z.W. asleep in her bed. L.S. told defendant to leave, and he refused. L.S. became angry and went downstairs and picked up a golf club. When she returned, L.S. told defendant he had five seconds to leave her home. When defendant reached the front door, he turned around and told Z.W., who was at the top of the stairs, to bring him something. L.S. reached around defendant, opened the front door, and pushed him out with one hand and told him to get out of her house. Once on the front porch, defendant turned and faced L.S. from a few feet away and told her, “You don’t know who I am, don’t push on me.” L.S. took defendant’s comment to mean that she did not know what he was capable of doing. In response, L.S. told him, “I am from the same streets you’re from, you need not to be getting at nobody like that, I’m somebody’s mother.” Defendant stated he did not give a “F” and that he