P. v. Lennan





Filed 3/2/11 P. v. Lennan CA2/6







NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BILL LENNAN, Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B225352 (Super. Ct. No. BA320412-01) (Los Angeles County)

Following resentencing, Bill Lennan appeals a judgment of conviction of conspiracy to commit murder and burglary (count 2) and attempted murder (count 3), with findings that a principal used a firearm to commit the crimes and that the crimes were committed to benefit a criminal street gang. (Pen. Code, §§ 182, subd. (a), 187, subd. (a), 664, 12022.53, subds. (d) & (e)(1), 186.22, subd. (b).)[1]
We appointed counsel to represent Lennan in this appeal. After counsel's examination of the record, he filed an opening brief raising no issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) On January 25, 2011, we advised Lennan that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished to raise on appeal. We have received a response from him contending that his resentence is excessive, the jury misapplied the instructions, and that count 2 rests upon legally inadequate theories. Pursuant to People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124, we present a factual and procedural summary of the case, and a brief discussion of Lennan's contentions.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 27, 2010, we filed our opinion in People Lennan (Jan. 27, 2010, B210522) [nonpub. opn.], reversing Lennan's conviction of first degree murder (count 1) due to jury misinstruction regarding felony murder. We affirmed Lennan's conviction of conspiracy to commit burglary or murder (count 2) and attempted murder (count 3), but remanded for resentencing.
On remand, the prosecutor elected not to retry Lennan for murder (count 1). The trial court resentenced Lennan to 25 years to life for count 2, plus 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement, to be served consecutively. For count 3, the court imposed 20 years to life plus 20 years to life for the firearm enhancement, the total to be served concurrently to the sentence on count 2. The court dismissed the murder allegations in count 1, imposed various fines and fees, and awarded Lennan 1,348 days of presentence custody credit.
DISCUSSION
Lennan does not point to any error in his resentence other than to claim it is excessive. The resentence complies with the stated punishment and sentence enhancement for the crimes of which he was convicted.
We also do not consider Lennan's general contentions regarding instructional error at his trial. Our prior opinion concluded that the jury received proper instruction regarding count 2 and that conviction of that count was supported by substantial evidence.
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.



GILBERT, P.J.
We concur:



YEGAN, J.



COFFEE, J.

Curtis B. Rappe, Judge

Superior Court County of Los Angeles

______________________________


Brett Harding Duxbury, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.



Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

---