P. v. Madrigal





Filed 4/27/11 P. v. Madrigal 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. PEDRO LUIS MADRIGAL, Defendant and Appellant.

B221339 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA086677)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Thomas C. Falls, Judge. Affirmed.

Marta I. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Linda C. Johnson, and Alene M. Games, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________


In an amended information filed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney, defendant and appellant Pedro Luis Madrigal was charged with carjacking using a firearm (count I; Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a)),^[1] assault with a semiautomatic firearm (count II;§ 245, subd. (b)), and attempted murder (count III; §§ 664/187, subd. (a)). As to all counts, it was alleged that appellant personally used a handgun within the meaning of section 12022.5, and section 12022.53, subdivisions (b), (c), and (d). It was further alleged that appellant personally inflicted great bodily injury within the meaning of section 12022.7, subdivision (a), and that the crimes were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang, within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivision (b). It was also alleged that appellant had prior convictions that could subject his sentence to enhancements within the meaning of sections 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d), 667, subdivisions (b) through (i), and 667.5. Appellant pleaded not guilty and denied the allegations.
Trial was by jury. The jury found appellant guilty as charged. Specifically, it found the attempted murder to be deliberate and premeditated, and it found the allegations that appellant personally used a firearm and personally inflicted great bodily injury to be true. The jury also found that the crimes were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. The trial court found three of appellant's four prior strike allegations to be true.
Appellant was sentenced to state prison for 95 years to life and ordered to pay a restitution fine and a parole revocation fine.
Appellant appeals his conviction. He contends: (1) The trial court abused its discretion in denying his request for a continuance of trial to allow him to retain private counsel. (2) His sentence as to count III should have been stayed pursuant to section 654 because the carjacking and attempted murder convictions were based on one continuous course of conduct against the same victim. (3) The trial court abused its discretion in refusing to strike his prior strike convictions (People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, 529–531 (Romero).)
We find no error. Accordingly, we affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In 2007, Yovany Quevedo (Quevedo) moved to the United States from Guadalajara, Mexico, and moved in with a friend, Diego Armando Casillas (Casillas), and his family in El Monte. Quevedo worked in construction and had bought a GMC Jimmy truck.
Quevedo met appellant at Casillas's house because Casillas permitted El Monte Flores (EMF) gang members to hang out at his house and do drugs. Quevedo knew appellant as â€