P. v. Lentner
Filed 11/4/10 P. v. Lentner CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff
and Respondent,
v.
ADAM CLINTON LENTNER,
Defendant
and Appellant.
E049474
(Super.Ct.No.
FWV802690)
OPINION
APPEAL
from the Superior Court
of San Bernardino
County. Raymond L.
Haight III, Judge. Affirmed.
R.
Clayton Seaman, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
Edmund
G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Gil Gonzalez and Tami
Falkenstein Hennick, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant
Adam Clinton Lentner appeals from his conviction on one count of felony
vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(1)) and 180-day jail sentence. Defendant argues: 1) the evidence seized from
his home should have been suppressed because the search warrant contained both
stale and false information; 2) the separate incidents of misdemeanor tagging
should not have been aggregated into one felony count; 3) the jury instructions
on aggregation were inadequate; and 4) the trial court should have but did not
instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of misdemeanor vandalism, and
this prejudiced defendant. As discussed
below, we reject each of these contentions.
and Procedure
Between
August 19 and October 6, 2008,
graffiti abatement personnel in the City of Montclair
found and removed 28 separate graffiti tags identifying the tagging crew as
â€
| Description | Defendant Adam Clinton Lentner appeals from his conviction on one count of felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(1)) and 180-day jail sentence. Defendant argues: 1) the evidence seized from his home should have been suppressed because the search warrant contained both stale and false information; 2) the separate incidents of misdemeanor tagging should not have been aggregated into one felony count; 3) the jury instructions on aggregation were inadequate; and 4) the trial court should have but did not instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of misdemeanor vandalism, and this prejudiced defendant. As discussed below, Court reject each of these contentions. |
| Rating |
