P. v. Newman CA2/2

Filed 5/2/13 P. v. Newman CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B239034

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA052946) v.

RONALD EVAN NEWMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Charles A. Chung, Judge. Affirmed but sentence modifications ordered.

Carla Castillo, 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, James William Bilderback II and Peggy Z. Huang, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

******

Ronald Evan Newman (appellant) appeals from the judgment entered upon his convictions by jury of assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1), count 2),1 burglary (§ 459, count 3), two counts of making criminal threats (§ 422, counts 4 and 5), and dissuading a witness from reporting a crime (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1), count 6). Prior to trial, count 1 was dismissed pursuant to section 1382. The trial court sentenced appellant to two years in state prison, selecting the low term of two years for count 2. The court imposed concurrent terms of 16 months to two years on counts 3 through 6. Appellant contends the trial court erred by (1) not staying his sentence on count 3 under section 654 on the ground the burglary and assault were incident to the same intent and objective; and (2) not staying his sentence on count 5 under section 654 on the ground the criminal threat and witness dissuasion involved the same victim and were incident to the same objective. The multiple victim exception to section 654 authorizes separate and concurrent sentences for the burglary and assault. We agree with appellant that the concurrent sentence for count 5 should have been stayed. We modify the judgment to correct the sentencing error and affirm the judgment as modified. FACTS Prosecution Case On May 27, 2011, appellant and his fiancée, Michele Bowes, went to dinner at a local restaurant. During dinner, appellant talked about his mother and his grandmother but was not making “sense” to Bowes. Bowes decided to leave the restaurant and went outside. Appellant followed Bowes outside and walked toward her car. Bowes drove to her home in the City of Lancaster. She parked the car around the corner from her home instead of her driveway because she wanted appellant to think she was not home. Bowes entered her house and placed a table in front of the front door. She told her 14-year-old daughter K.B. to go into Bowes’s bedroom with her and she then barricaded the bedroom door.