P. v. Cooper
Filed 11/4/10 P. v. Cooper
CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
FREDDIE O. COOPER,
Defendant and Appellant.
B214490
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. NA079743)
APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court
of Los Angeles
County.
James M. Ideman, Judge. Reversed in part and affirmed in part.
David
McNeil Morse, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Edmund
G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Daniel R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Steven E. Mercer and
Alene M. Games, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
________________
Appellant Freddie Oliver
Cooper was convicted of possession of
marijuana for sale. He was given an
enhanced prison sentence due to the jury's finding that the crime was gang
related. In this appeal, he challenges
the sufficiency of the evidence to support the gang enhancement. Because we agree that the enhancement was not
supported by substantial evidence, we reverse the jury's finding and strike the
enhancement.
By felony information
filed October 23, 2008,
appellant was charged with two counts of attempted
first degree murder, two counts of assault with a firearm, two counts of
assault with a semiautomatic firearm, and one count (count 5) with possession
of marijuana for sale, in violation of Health and Safety Code section
11359. The information specially
alleged, pursuant to Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1),[1] that all seven counts were â€
| Description | Appellant Freddie Oliver Cooper was convicted of possession of marijuana for sale. He was given an enhanced prison sentence due to the jury's finding that the crime was gang related. In this appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the gang enhancement. Because we agree that the enhancement was not supported by substantial evidence, we reverse the jury's finding and strike the enhancement. |
| Rating |
