P. v. Brooks
Filed 8/16/07 P. v. Brooks CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RONALD VIRGIL BROOKS, Defendant and Appellant. | A110351 (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. SC055718) |
BY THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on July 18, 2007 be modified as follows:
1. Footnote 4, page 18 shall be deleted and replaced with the following: The day before Michael G.s testimony, the trial granted a motion to sever Brookss trial from that of his co-defendant Nathan Seastrunk, who was accused of being the other person who robbed Rodrigues and Asoau. Although Brookss counsel was aware that Michael G. would testify the next day, neither he nor Brooks were present when Michael G. testified about the conditions under which he made statements to Espinoza and, later, to a deputy district attorney and police officer.
2. Page 20, line 9, the words Brookss co-defendant shall be deleted.
3. Page 6, line 14, the phrase that case shall be deleted and replaced with the phrase this case.
The Petition for Rehearing is denied. This modification does not effect a change in the judgment.
Dated: ______________________ ___________________________
Kline, P.J.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line attorney.
