P. v. Mancilla
On June 4, 2009, appellant Andrew Rogillo Mancilla entered into a negotiated plea agreement in Kings County case No. 09CM7180. In exchange for his no contest plea to one count of robbery and one count of active participation in a criminal street gang, he was placed on felony probation for five years. (Pen. Code,[1] §§ 211, 186.22, subd. (a).)
On October 19, 2010, appellant was convicted after jury trial in Kings County case No. 10CM7002 of two counts of attempted murder (§§ 664/187, subd. (a); counts 1 & 2), three counts of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); counts 3, 4, 5), one count of burglary (§ 459; count 6), three counts of felony vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a); counts 7, 8, 9); and one count of active participation in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a); count 10). The jury found true special allegations that appellant personally inflicted great bodily injury during the commission of counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 10 (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) and that counts 1 through 9 were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). The jury found true two prior strike allegations arising from the convictions in case No. 09CM7180. (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i).)[2] After the verdicts were entered, the court found in case No. 09CM7180 that appellant violated his probation by failing to obey all laws and by associating with gang members.
Appellant was sentenced in both cases on November 17, 2010. In case No. 10CM7002, the court imposed two aggregate terms of 40 years to life for counts 1 and 2, plus an aggregate term of 30 years to life for count 3, and three aggregate terms of 28 years to life for counts 7, 8 and 9. All of the terms were ordered to run consecutively. Sentences were imposed and stayed on counts 4, 5, 6 and 10. In case No. 09CM7180, the court imposed three years for count 1 and a consecutive term of eight months for count 2. The sentence in case No. 09CM7180 was ordered to run consecutive to the sentence in case No. 10CM7002.
Comments on P. v. Mancilla