P. v. Riker
David Robert Riker was jointly charged and tried with codefendant Richard Allan Walker for first degree murder (Pen. Code, 187;[1]count 1), robbery ( 211; count 2), burglary ( 459; count 3), and unlawful driving or taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, 10851; count 4). Three special circumstances were alleged as to the murder: (1) Riker and Walker had been previously convicted of murder ( 190.2, subd. (a)(2); (2) the murder was committed during the course of a robbery ( 190.2, subdivision (a)(17)(i); and (3) the murder was committed during the course of a burglary ( 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(vii). In May 2005 the jury found Riker guilty of first degree murder and found true the special circumstance allegations of a previous murder conviction and murder during the course of a robbery. It found the burglary special circumstance not true. The jury also found Riker guilty of robbery, grand theft as a lesser included offense of burglary, and unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle.
Walker was acquitted of the murder charge and convicted of grand theft as a lesser included offense of burglary, and unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle. The jury was unable to reach a verdict as to Walker on the robbery charge, a mistrial was declared as to that count and, on the People's motion, the robbery charge was dismissed. Riker was sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole for the murder conviction. He was sentenced to the middle term of three years on the robbery charge, the middle term of two years on the grand theft charge; and the middle term of two years on the unlawful taking of a vehicle charge, which were stayed under section 654. The court imposed a $10,000 restitution fine and a $10,000 parole revocation fine. Court conclude that (1) Riker's conviction of grand theft must be reversed as it is a lesser included offense of robbery, (2) the abstract of judgment must be corrected accurately to reflect the sentence imposed the court, and (3) the parole revocation fine must be stricken. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
Comments on P. v. Riker