P. v. McClish
Filed 4/4/06 P. v. McClish CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD JEROME McCLISH, Defendant and Appellant. | C047324
(Super. Ct. No. 03F04866)
|
Defendant Richard Jerome McClish was found guilty by a jury of attempted premeditated murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 664, subd. (a)‑‑count one)[1] with enhancements for personally using a firearm (§§ 12022.53, subds. (b) & (c), 12022.5, subd. (a)) and committing the offense with knowledge that the victim was a peace officer (§ 664, subd. (e)). The jury also found defendant guilty of committing an assault with a firearm on a peace officer (§ 245, subd. (d)(1)‑‑count two) with enhancements for personal use of a firearm (§§ 12022.53, subds. (b) & (c), 12022.5, subd. (a)), felon in possession of a firearm (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1)‑‑count three), carrying a concealed firearm (§ 12025, subd. (b)(6)‑‑count four) and carrying a loaded firearm (§ 12031, subd. (a)(2)(f)‑‑count five). The jury was unable to reach a verdict on a charge of grossly negligent discharge of a firearm (§ 246.3‑‑count six). Defendant waived jury trial on two prior strike convictions, and the trial court found the two convictions true. Probation was denied and defendant was sentenced to serve an indeterminate term of 45 years to life on count one (§ 664, subd. (f), tripled pursuant to section 667, subd. (e)(2)(A)(i)) and a consecutive indeterminate sentence of 25 years to life on count three (§ 667, subd. (e)(2)(A)(ii)), plus a 20-year consecutive term for the firearm use enhancement (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)). Sentences on the remaining counts were stayed pursuant to section 654.
Defendant appeals, claiming there was insufficient evidence he committed premeditated attempted murder. Defendant also contends the trial court erred by failing to strike one of his prior strike convictions and by staying, rather than striking, the firearm use enhancement on count two. Concluding these arguments are without merit, we shall affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On the morning of May 28, 2003, while on routine motorcycle patrol, Highway Patrol Officer Robert Brown initiated a traffic stop on a car with one occupant that was driving in the carpool lane. The driver of the car, later identified as defendant, responded by pulling over into the right lane and proceeding down the highway for over a mile to the next exit. Defendant got off at the exit and, at the first intersection, made a right turn from a lane to the left of the two right-turn lanes, against a red light and without slowing down. At this point, Officer Brown â€
