People v. Palacios CA4/3

Filed 9/30/21 P. v. Palacios CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G059229

v. (Super. Ct. No. 18CF2471)

MIGUEL ANGEL ROSAS PALACIOS, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Maria D. Hernandez, Judge. Affirmed as modified. Thien Huong Tran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, and Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Pulos and Teressa Torreblanca, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

A jury convicted defendant Miguel Angel Rosas Palacios of one count of first degree residential burglary of an inhabited dwelling (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. 1 (a); count 1), one count of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count 2), one count of domestic battery with corporal injury (§ 273.5, subd. (a); count 3), and one count of vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a); count 4). The jury found defendant guilty of all counts and allegations. The court sentenced defendant to five years in state prison as follows: (1) the midterm of four years on count 1, plus one year for the knife use enhancement; (2) a concurrent term of three years on count 2; (3) a concurrent term of three years on count 3; and (4) 365 days with credit for time served on count 4. Defendant raises two issues on appeal. First, he contends his defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to object to the prosecutor’s misstatement of law during closing argument. Second, he argues the court erred by failing to stay his sentence on count 2 pursuant to section 654. He claims the burglary and assault were committed during an indivisible course of conduct with the single intent and objective of assaulting the victim. For the reasons below, defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails because he cannot demonstrate prejudice. But we agree the court erred by imposing concurrent sentences on counts 1 and 2. The judgment accordingly is modified to stay sentencing on count 2. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed. FACTS