P. v. Rayfrod
Filed 7/18/06 P. v. Rayfrod CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JUAN MARSHALL RAYFORD et al., Defendants and Appellants. | B179017 (Super. Ct. No. MA028053) |
APPEAL from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Robert Perry, Judge. Affirmed as modified.
Gary V. Crooks, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Juan Marshall Rayford.
Cannon & Harris and Gregory L. Cannon for Defendant and Appellant Dupree Antoine Glass.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Victoria B. Wilson and Noah P. Hill, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________________________________
- Juan Marshall Rayford and Dupree Antoine Glass appeal from judgments entered after a jury found them each guilty of 11 counts of willful, deliberate and premeditated attempted murder and one count of shooting at an inhabited building. With respect to each offense as to each defendant, the jury found a gang enhancement allegation to be true and also found a principal personally and intentionally discharged a firearm. The trial court sentenced each defendant to 11 life sentences for the attempted murders plus 220 years on the firearm enhancements.
Rayford and Glass challenge their convictions for attempted murder on grounds of insufficiency of the evidence and errors in instructing the jury on intent, among other grounds. Finding none of these claims to have merit, we affirm the attempted murder convictions. Rayford and Glass also contend there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's true findings on the gang enhancement allegations under Penal Code section 186.22.[1] We agree with this contention because we find the prosecution failed to prove there was any â€
