P. v. Setodeh
Filed 7/18/06 P. v. Setodeh CA2/1
Opinion following rehearing
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 ONE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PORANG GODARZI SETODEH, Defendant and Appellant. | B184189 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SA036653) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Elden S. Fox, Judge. Affirmed.
Porang Godarzi Setodeh, in pro. per., and Ellen M. Matsumoto, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________________________
Porang Setodeh appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of attempted voluntary manslaughter, a lesser offense of the charged crime of attempted murder. Defendant was further found to have used a deadly weapon and inflicted great bodily injury in the commission of the offense, which occurred on June 5, 1999, when two groups of young men, one Persian and the other African-American, had a late-night encounter outside a club on Sunset Boulevard, and defendant stabbed the victim with a knife. Defendant was sentenced to the low term of 18 months, plus 4 years for enhancements, and filed a timely notice of appeal. We appointed counsel to represent him.
On December 16, 2005, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441–442.) We then sent notice to defendant that within 30 days he could personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. Counsel thereafter requested extensions on defendant's behalf, explaining that defendant is housed in a facility that is under a lockdown order and he has had limited access to the law library. On March 6, 2005, we granted a third extension request, requiring any supplemental brief to be filed by April 16, 2006. When no brief had been received by June, we filed an opinion affirming defendant's conviction. (People v. Setodeh (June 14, 2006, B184189) [nonpub. opn.].) We thereafter received a letter brief from defendant and a petition for rehearing, asking that the brief be considered. On June 29, 2006, we granted the petition.
In his letter brief defendant makes seven arguments, which we discuss in the order raised.
Defendant first contends that a six-pack photo lineup was unduly suggestive because his photograph had a different color background and border than the other five photographs. (At trial, it was explained that defendant was not photographed for the six-pack because of the injuries he sustained in the incident, so the officer who prepared the lineup made a photocopy of the picture on defendant's driver's license and included it with photocopies of the photographs of the other participants in the lineup.) We have inspected the six-pack lineup that was submitted into evidence at trial. We conclude that use of defendant's driver's license produced only a minor, inconsequential difference between defendant's photograph and those of the other participants in the six-pack. Nor is a photo lineup â€
