People v. Ackerman CA3

Filed 2/26/13 P. v. Ackerman CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C071160

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 11F05717)

v.

JOSHUA CHARLES ACKERMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Joshua Charles Ackerman guilty of felony vandalism and the misdemeanor of firing a BB gun in a grossly negligent manner. (Pen. Code, §§ 594, subd. (a) [count one], 246.3, subd. (b) [count two].) The trial court granted formal probation on the felony count and imposed a one-year jail term for the misdemeanor.

On appeal, defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for disclosure of juror identification information (or alternately for a mistrial for juror misconduct). He also contends he cannot be punished both for firing the BB gun and for the act of vandalism that resulted. We shall affirm the verdicts, but must remand for resentencing and stay execution of sentence on count two.

1

Although both parties provide a thorough summary of the evidence at trial, the arguments on appeal implicate only a sliver of the facts underlying the convictions, and we do not need to assess prejudice. We thus note only that two passengers riding on a commuter bus heard a loud bang. The window next to one of them shattered. The other saw the driver of a blue “Super Shuttle” van next to the bus with a pistol in his right hand pointed out the window. As the driver slowed down for traffic in front of him, he pulled the pistol back into the van. At trial, the second bus passenger identified defendant as the driver of the van. Based on Super Shuttle’s satellite tracking data, the only van in the vicinity of the bus at that time was one that defendant normally drove. We will include any other pertinent facts in the Discussion.