P. v. Carillo

Filed 8/18/06 P. v. Carillo CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Jacob H. Jager, Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.

Richard de la Sota, 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, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Scott C. Taylor, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Kelley Johnson, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A jury convicted defendant of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)), and attempted robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 664/211). He was granted probation and appeals, claiming (1) the trial court erred in permitting a defense witness to invoke his right not to incriminate himself, and (2) his conviction for aggravated assault was beyond the trial court's jurisdiction and violated his right to due process. We reject his contentions and affirm.

Facts

Around 11:20 p.m. on April 24, 2004, defendant and seven to nine companions confronted and demanded money from the robbery victim and the attempted robbery victim. When the attempted robbery victim said he didn't intend to surrender any of his possessions, he was hit in the face with a rock. The robbery victim then handed over his watch, and defendant and his cohorts ran down the street.

Issues and Discussion

1. Defense Witness's Invocation of His Right Not to Incriminate Himself

Defendant wanted an almost 16 year old to testify in his behalf. Outside the presence of the jury, this witness testified that he had a petition filed in juvenile court â€