People v. Scribner CA4/1

Filed 5/23/24 P. v. Scribner CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D081867

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD295379)

CHRISTOPHER LEE SCRIBNER,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Joan P. Weber, Judge. Affirmed and remanded with directions. Christopher Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters and Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorneys General, A. Natasha Cortina and Kelley Johnson, Deputy Attorneys General for Plaintiff and Respondent. A jury convicted Christopher Lee Scribner of making criminal threats

(Pen. Code,1 § 422; count 1) and exhibiting a deadly weapon other than a

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

firearm (§ 417, subd. (a)(1); count 2). It found true allegations that while committing the count 1 threat, Scribner personally used a deadly weapon—a stick—within the meaning of sections 1192.7, subdivision (c)(23) and 12022, subdivision (b)(1). Scribner admitted he had suffered two prior strike convictions (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 668, 1170.12). The court found true an allegation that he committed the criminal threat while he was out on bail in a separate case (§ 12022.1, subd. (b)). After striking one of Scribner’s strike convictions, the court sentenced him to a 10-year state prison term: four years (double the midterm) on count 1 plus a consecutive one-year term for the weapon enhancement (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)), and a consecutive five-year term for the remaining prior strike under section 667, subdivision (a)(1). It did not impose the on-bail enhancement. The court did not discuss count 2.