Fear Not Law Articles: P. v. Studebaker

P. v. Studebaker

Filed 1/31/07 P. v. Studebaker CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

CHAD RUSSELL STUDEBAKER,

Defendant and Appellant.

G035535

(Super. Ct. No. 03WF2364)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, William R. Froeberg, Judge. Affirmed.

Sylvia Whatley Beckham, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Ronda Cartwright-Ladendorf and Robert M. Foster, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

Chad Russell Studebaker appeals from the judgment sending him to prison for an indeterminate term of 15 years to life and a determinate term of six years, eight months, following a jury's conviction of street terrorism, attempted premeditated murder, assault with a deadly weapon and car theft. (See Pen. Code, §§ 186.22, subd. (a), 187, 245, subd. (a)(1), 664; Veh. Code § 10851.)[1] All but the first crime was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. (See § 186.22, subd. (b).)[2] In a bifurcated hearing, Studebaker admitted he had two prior prison terms. (See § 667.5, subd. (b).)

Studebaker contends on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion numerous times: It denied his motion to bifurcate the gang enhancement; it denied his motion for mistrial following a prosecution witness's violation of an in limine order and after the jury returned a partial verdict; and it permitted the prosecution's gang expert to give his opinion allegedly without sufficient foundation. He contends the court erred in instructing the jury as to the limited use it could make of certain evidence and also argues the evidence was insufficient to sustain the street terrorism charge and the street gang enhancement. We affirm.

FACTS

Studebaker was an active member of â€

Description	Defendant appeals from the judgment sending him to prison for an indeterminate term of 15 years to life and a determinate term of six years, eight months, following a jury's conviction of street terrorism, attempted premeditated murder, assault with a deadly weapon and car theft. (See Pen. Code, SS 186.22, subd. (a), 187, 245, subd. (a)(1), 664; Veh. Code S 10851.) All but the first crime was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. (See S 186.22, subd. (b).) In a bifurcated hearing, Defendant admitted he had two prior prison terms. (See S 667.5, subd. (b).) Defendant contends on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion numerous times: It denied his motion to bifurcate the gang enhancement; it denied his motion for mistrial following a prosecution witness's violation of an in limine order and after the jury returned a partial verdict; and it permitted the prosecution's gang expert to give his opinion allegedly without sufficient foundation. Defendant contends the court erred in instructing the jury as to the limited use it could make of certain evidence and also argues the evidence was insufficient to sustain the street terrorism charge and the street gang enhancement. Court affirm.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.