P. v. Price CA2/4

Filed 5/8/13 P. v. Price CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B239569

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA388473) v.

RONNIE PRICE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jose I. Sandoval, Judge. Affirmed as modified. Rachel Lederman, 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, Eric E. Reynolds and Ana R. Duarte, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Ronnie Price appeals from the judgment entered following his convictions on one count each of simple assault (Pen. Code, § 240), evading an officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.1, subd. (a)), criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422), possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1)), and possession of ammunition (Pen. Code, § 12316, subd. (b)(1)).1 Appellant contends that the trial court erred in sentencing by failing to state its reasons for imposing the upper term and consecutive sentences. He also contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We conclude that he forfeited his claim by failing to object to the court’s failure to state its reasons but that, in any event, he has not established he was prejudiced by his trial counsel’s failure to object. We direct the trial court to correct a clerical error in the abstract of judgment and otherwise affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Prosecution Evidence On July 7, 2011, Horace Jordan was staying at the Midnight Mission in Los Angeles. Appellant asked Jordan if he would be willing to participate in a medical survey in exchange for $50 a week for two years. Jordan agreed to participate, and appellant told him to meet him at 8:00 the following morning. The following morning, appellant drove up in a van to meet Jordan at the mission. Jordan and another man got into the van, and Jordan began asking appellant when he would receive the payment. Appellant and Jordan began arguing, so Jordan decided to get out of the van and leave. When Jordan began walking down the street, appellant got out of the van and began calling Jordan names. Appellant said that he was a member of a gang