P. v. Callies CA3

Filed 6/5/13 P. v. Callies CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C071609

v. (Super. Ct. No. 11F05733)

JUDGE CALLIES,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury convicted defendant Judge Callies of robbery and kidnapping to commit robbery. Defendant now contends (1) the trial court erred in instructing the jury with the last bracketed paragraph in CALCRIM No. 226 [witnesses], and (2) the abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect a sentence of life with the possibility of parole, rather than seven years to life in prison. We conclude there was no instructional error and the abstract of judgment correctly reflects the sentence imposed by the trial court.

1

We will affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND Eric Scott drove into a parking space at a taco stand and bumped another car. Defendant and another man claimed the car was theirs and asked Scott to pay for the damage. Scott gave defendant $20 or $30, but defendant said that was not enough money. Defendant offered to go with Scott to a bank to get more money. Scott construed the “offer” as a demand. Defendant had his hand in his pocket and Scott thought defendant might have a gun. Fearing for his safety, Scott drove with defendant to an ATM, withdrew $160, and gave it to defendant. Defendant suggested Scott’s car stereo could be used to make up the balance on the money “owed” for car repairs. Scott disagreed, but defendant instructed him to drive to an apartment complex. Scott realized a car was following them and became more worried he would be hurt. At the apartment complex, defendant started taking the dashboard apart to remove the car stereo. He obtained metal cutters from his friend, Jibri Stepter, and continued trying to remove the stereo. Stepter took Scott’s wallet and left. Defendant told Scott to hand over his car keys; he also took Scott’s cell phone. Defendant then drove Scott around asking strangers for a screwdriver that he could use to remove the car stereo. When one man offered them a butter knife, defendant rejected the offer by pointing his gun at the man. Eventually, defendant removed the stereo from Scott’s car and returned the car to Scott. Scott returned to the taco stand, borrowed a cell phone and called the police. Defendant testified he thought Scott looked like an “easy target.” The car Scott hit did not belong to either defendant or his friend, but when defendant saw the collision he decided to con Scott out of money. He told Scott the damage could be covered by $100 to $200 and when Scott informed defendant he only had $30 on him, defendant offered to go with him to an ATM. Scott came back from the ATM with $160 and defendant tried