P. v. Gresham
Filed 6/22/06 P. v. Gresham CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL ANTHONY GRESHAM, Defendant and Appellant. | E038880 (Super.Ct.No. RIF102007) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Russell F. Schooling, Judge. (Retired judge of the Mun. Ct. for the Southeast Jud. Dist. of L.A., assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6, of the Cal. Const.). Affirmed.
Richard Schwartzberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Barry Carlton, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and James Flaherty, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
After withdrawing his initial guilty plea, defendant and appellant Michael Gresham (defendant) pled guilty after the commencement of his second jury trial, to (1) robbery under Penal Code[1] section 211 (counts 1 through 7); (2) vehicle theft under Vehicle Code section 19751, subdivision (a) (count 8); (3) buying and receiving a stolen vehicle under section 496d (count 9); and (4) false imprisonment under section 236 (counts 10 through 17). Defendant also admitted that counts 1 through 7 and 10 through 17 were committed for the benefit of and in association with a criminal street gang under section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1). The trial court sentenced defendant to 41 years in state prison. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences on counts 1 through 7, and concurrent sentences on counts 10 through 17. For the reasons set forth below, we shall affirm the judgment.
I
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 15, 2002, at approximately 5:55 p.m., three hooded and masked robbers entered a Bank of America in the City of Calimesa, County of Riverside. Fifteen employees and customers were inside the bank. The robbers immediately ordered them to the ground. One robber, holding a black semi-automatic handgun, ordered bank teller Kara Willis to â€
