People v. Wilson4/10/2002
As modified May 6, 2002. There is no change in the judgment. Petition for rehearing denied.
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
DAVID ROGER WILSON, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. 62-11854)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sims, Acting P.J.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
A jury convicted defendant David Roger Wilson of six felonies and seven misdemeanors arising out of incidents occurring on October 15, 1999, and November 2, 1999. On counts 1 through 6, concerning the November incident, the jury convicted defendant of assault with a deadly weapon on three different victims (counts 1-3; Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1) [all undesignated section references are to the Penal Code]) and battery with serious bodily injury on the same victims (counts 4-6; § 243, subd. (d).) On counts 8-14, concerning the October incident, the jury convicted defendant of misdemeanor battery upon a peace officer (count 8; § 243, subd. (b)), misdemeanor resisting a peace officer (count 9; § 148, subd. (a)), misdemeanor vandalism (count 10; § 594, subd. (b)(4)), misdemeanor driving under the influence (count 11; Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)), misdemeanor driving with a blood alcohol content of .08 percent or higher (count 12; Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b)), misdemeanor driving while unlicensed (count 13; Veh. Code, § 12500), and misdemeanor possession of less than one ounce of marijuana (count 14; Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (b)). As to counts 1-3, the jury found defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victims (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)); as to counts 4-6, the jury found defendant personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon, a pool stick and/or cue ball (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)).
In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court thereafter found defendant had suffered two "strikes" (§§ 667, subds. (a)(1), (b)-(i); 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and was statutorily ineligible for probation (§ 1203, subd. (e)(4)). After denying defendant's motion to dismiss the "strikes," the court sentenced him to an aggregate state prison term of 33 years to life.
Defendant contends the trial court erred prejudicially by (1) consolidating the October and November cases against him; (2) excluding evidence of one victim's felony convictions and failing to instruct the jury on the law of accomplices with respect to that victim; (3) instructing the jury with CALJIC No. 17.41.1; (4) answering a legal question from the jury during deliberations without notice to or consultation with counsel; and (5) asking jurors collectively rather than individually about their conclusions and inquiring into their votes rather than their verdicts. Finding no prejudicial error, we shall affirm.
FACTS
The October Incident
At about 11:00 p.m. on October 15, 1999, Roseville Police Officer Wayne Neidig, in a patrol car, saw defendant and a female passenger on a motorcycle going through an intersection; because the passenger did not have a helmet, Neidig decided to pull defendant over. Following defendant, Neidig saw him speed up to 45 miles per hour in a 25-mile-per-hour zone. Neidig called for backup.
Defendant and the passenger (his girlfriend Margaret Wesley who later became his wife) stopped and dismounted in the p
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|