P. v. Suares CA2/4

Filed 4/25/13 P. v. Suares CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B241594

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA347720) v.

JESSE SUARES,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Laura F. Priver, Judge. Affirmed. Gerald Peters, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Victoria B. Wilson and Chung L. Mar, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Jesse Suares appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by jury on numerous counts: (1) assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2)); (2) evading an officer with willful disregard (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)); (3) resisting an executive officer (Pen. Code, § 69); (4) transportation of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)); (5) possession for sale of a controlled substance1 (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378); (6) possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1)); (7) possession of ammunition by a felon (Pen. Code, § 12316, subd. (b)(1)); (8) leaving the scene of an accident (Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a)); and (9) assault with a semiautomatic firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (b)).2 Appellant contends that the trial court erred in imposing firearm enhancements pursuant to section 12022.5, subdivision (a), in counts 1 and 9 because use of a firearm is an element of assault with a firearm and assault with a semiautomatic firearm. He further contends that the court erred in imposing section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C) gang enhancements on counts 1 and 9 because there was no underlying violent felony. We disagree with the contentions and affirm the judgment.