People v. Navarro CA5

Filed 10/14/22 P. v. Navarro CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, F083216 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 21CMS0124) v.

RUDY NAVARRO, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT * APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. Michael J. Reinhart, Judge. Kieran D. C. Manjarrez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher J. Rench and Darren K. Indermill, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Franson, Acting P. J., Peña, J. and Meehan, J.

Defendant Rudy Navarro was convicted by jury trial of second degree robbery and criminal threats. On appeal, he contends there was insufficient evidence to support his criminal threats conviction because the victim did not suffer “sustained fear,” an element of the crime. We affirm. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On May 24, 2021, the Kings County District Attorney filed a first amended information charging defendant with second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211; count 1) 1 and criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a); count 2). The amended information specially alleged personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)) as to both counts. It was further alleged defendant had suffered five prior strike convictions within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)) and five prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). On May 27, 2021, the jury found defendant guilty of both counts, but found the firearm special allegations not true. It found true the prior strike convictions and prior serious felony convictions.2 On August 5, 2021, the trial court sentenced defendant to 15 years in state prison. On count 1, defendant was sentenced to five years doubled to 10 years pursuant to the Three Strikes law, plus five years for the prior serious felony conviction. On count 2, he was sentenced to three years, doubled to six years pursuant to the Three Strikes law, which was stayed pursuant to section 654. On August 19, 2021, defendant filed a notice of appeal.