P. v. Reil CA4/3

Filed 6/19/13 P. v. Reil CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G046956

v. (Super. Ct. No. 10CF2458)

ROBERT LUIS REIL, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Daniel McNerney, Judge. Affirmed. Christopher Nalls, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Annie Featherman Fraser, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

A jury convicted defendant Robert Luis Reil of conspiracy to commit robbery, count 1 (Pen. Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 211; all further statutory references are to the Penal Code), murder with special circumstance that murder was committed during an attempted robbery, count 2 (§§ 187, 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(A)), and participation in a criminal street gang, count 3 (§ 186.22, subd. (a)). They also found firearm enhancements (§ 12022.53, subds. (d), (e)(1)) and gang enhancements (§ 186.22, subd. (b)). The information also alleged a strike prior (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), a serious felony prior (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), and three prison prior enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The prior conviction allegations were dismissed. The court sentenced defendant to 25 years to life on count 2, 25 years to life for the gun enhancement for a total of 50 years to life. The court stayed sentence on counts 1 and 3 and the gang enhancement on count 2 under section 654. In his appeal defendant contends insufficient evidence supports the conspiracy to commit robbery or the murder count. He also contends the court erred by instructing the jury that the testimony of his girlfriend required supporting evidence and in failing to instruct on involuntary manslaughter. The evidence was sufficient and there was no instructional error. We therefore affirm the judgment.