P. v. Rosales
Filed 9/28/10 P. v. Rosales CA2/5
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
FIVE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
HUGO ROSALES,
Defendant and Appellant.
B220987
(Los Angeles
County Super.
Ct.
No. NA083408)
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court
of Los Angeles
County, Gary J. Ferrari, Judge. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Patrick
Morgan Ford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Edmund G.
Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Susan D.
Martynec and Lance E. Winters, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
___________________________________
A jury found defendant and appellant Hugo Rosales guilty
of attempted robbery in violation of
Penal Code sections 664 and 211,[1] specially finding the robbery was in the
second degree and defendant personally used a knife (§ 12022, subd.
(b)(1)). Defendant admitted the truth of
the recidivist allegations, including a prior serious or violent conviction
within the meaning of both the three strikes law (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d),
667, subds. (b)-(i)) and section 667, subdivision (a). The trial court imposed a ten-year prison
term, selecting the middle term of two years, doubled under the three strikes
law, plus five years for the section 667 finding and one year for the weapon
enhancement.[2] In his timely appeal, defendant contends the
trial court failed to obtain an adequate waiver of his Boykin/Tahl[3] constitutional trial rights prior to accepting
his admissions of the recidivist allegations and violated his federal
constitutional rights to due process
and a jury trial under the Fourteenth and Sixth Amendments by refusing his
request to modify the pattern instruction on evaluation of eyewitness testimony
(CALJIC No. 2.92) by eliminating the â€
| Description | A jury found defendant and appellant Hugo Rosales guilty of attempted robbery in violation of Penal Code sections 664 and 211,[1] specially finding the robbery was in the second degree and defendant personally used a knife (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). Defendant admitted the truth of the recidivist allegations, including a prior serious or violent conviction within the meaning of both the three strikes law (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and section 667, subdivision (a). The trial court imposed a ten-year prison term, selecting the middle term of two years, doubled under the three strikes law, plus five years for the section 667 finding and one year for the weapon enhancement.[2] In his timely appeal, defendant contends the trial court failed to obtain an adequate waiver of his Boykin/Tahl[3] constitutional trial rights prior to accepting his admissions of the recidivist allegations and violated his federal constitutional rights to due process and a jury trial under the Fourteenth and Sixth Amendments by refusing his request to modify the pattern instruction on evaluation of eyewitness testimony (CALJIC No. 2.92) by eliminating the †|
| Rating |
