>

>P. v.
Cardona

















Filed
10/12/10 P. v. Cardona CA5 >















NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT


>

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DANIEL CARDONA, Defendant and Appellant.

F057879 (Super. Ct. No. 1242955) >OPINION

APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus
County. Donald E. Shaver, Judge.

Victor
Blumenkrantz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.

Edmund G.
Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen A. McKenna
and William K. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

A jury
found appellant Daniel Cardona guilty of kidnapping
to commit robbery (aggravated kidnapping) (Pen. Code,^[1] § 209, subd. (b)(1); count 1), robbery
(§ 211; count 2), and attempted robbery (§§ 664, 211; count 3). In a bifurcated
proceeding, the trial court found appellant suffered three prior convictions,
which qualified as prior strikes (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and serious
felony enhancements (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)).
Appellant was sentenced as a third strike offender to prison for a total
of 40 years to life: 25 years to life on
each count, plus 15 years for the serious felony conviction enhancements; the
court ordered the sentences on each count to run concurrently.

On appeal, appellant contends: (1) the trial court erred by denying his
request for a trial continuance to admit proposed expert testimony on posttraumatic stress
disorder; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of
aggravated kidnapping; (3) the trial court erred in imposing three five-year
serious felony enhancements and should have imposed only two of the
enhancements; and (4) the imposition of concurrent terms for the aggravated
kidnapping and the robbery violated section 654. We agree with appellant's third contention,
which respondent concedes, and will direct the trial court to amend the
abstract of judgment accordingly. In all
other respects, the judgment will be affirmed.

FACTS

On March
15, 2008, approximately 5:00 p.m., appellant walked into a Kmart store in the
city of Ceres. It was a busy time of day
and there were quite a few customers and employees inside the store. Appellant approached Jeannette Garcia, a
cashier, who was at the end of her shift and in the process of closing out her
cash register. Garcia's cash register
contained approximately $300 at the time, and was the first register open to
customers when they walked through the door.


Appellant told Garcia to give him
her money or he was going to kill her.
Appellant said he had a gun and Garcia felt him press an object against
her back. Appellant kept repeating, â€