P. v. Richardson
Filed 8/18/06 P. v. Richardson CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JIMMY RICHARDSON, Defendant and Appellant. | C049430
(Super. Ct. No. 04F01869)
|
A jury convicted defendant Jimmy Richardson of assaulting his wife with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a))[1] and found that he personally used a knife (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)) and personally inflicted great bodily injury under circumstances involving domestic violence (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)). The jury deadlocked and a mistrial was declared on a count of attempting to murder his wife. (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664.)
In a bifurcated proceeding, the jury found that defendant had suffered a March 1999 prior conviction of assault with a deadly weapon and an October 1992 prior conviction of evading a peace officer and causing serious bodily injury (Veh. Code,
§ 2800.3).[2]
Defendant was sentenced to state prison for 25 years to life for the assault (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12), four years for inflicting great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)), and 10 years for the two prior serious felonies (§ 667, subd. (a)).
On appeal, defendant claims his third strike sentence must be reversed because neither prior conviction was a strike. Regarding the 1992 prior conviction, he claims the trial court erred by concluding the victims sustained great bodily injury, and by allowing the prosecution to present live testimony as to whether he had an accomplice in that case. Regarding the 1999 prior conviction, he claims there was insufficient evidence that the offense involved a deadly weapon. We shall affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The facts of the present offense are not at issue and need not be set forth in this opinion.
The amended information alleged that defendant had been convicted in Sacramento County in 1992 of the crime of evading a peace officer and causing serious bodily injury or death, a violation of Vehicle Code section 2800.3.
At a pretrial conference in September 2004, the prosecutor stated her theory that this crime was a serious felony pursuant to section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(8), which defines a serious felony as including â€
