He agreed to do so (testimony that was admitted over defense objection). They stopped for gasoline at an AM/PM store, where some “kids” approached and asked defendant to buy beer for them. On the evening of July 29, 1999, while Schmidt was a passenger in defendant's car, defendant asked to borrow money from Schmidt. Around the end of June 1999, Schmidt and defendant broke up (though he continued to drive her home from work), and defendant moved in with neighbor Judy Pena. ![]() In mid-June 1999, defendant hit her and tried to choke her at Benham Park after expressing anger that Schmidt received a telephone call from a male friend. The following evidence was adduced at trial:Įrika Schmidt (age 20) testified that defendant (age 28) was a former boyfriend who lived with her briefly. (e)(1)) and (10) using force and violence on July 31, 1999, upon Matthew Zook (§ 242). (e)(1)) (9) using force and violence on July 29, 1999, upon Erika Schmidt, a person with whom defendant had a previous dating relationship (§ 243, subd. (b)(1)) (8) using force and violence on July 31, 1999, upon Erika Schmidt, a person with whom defendant had a previous dating relationship (§ 243, subd. (b)(1)) (7) attempting on July 31, 1999, to dissuade Jordan Immer from reporting a crime (§ 136.1, subd. ![]() (b)(1)) (6) attempting on July 31, 1999, to dissuade Matthew Zook from reporting a crime (§ 136.1, subd. ![]() We shall otherwise affirm the judgment.īy an information filed in September 1999, defendant was charged with: (1) inflicting corporal injury on cohabitant Erika Schmidt between June 15, 1999, and J(§ 273.5) (2) making a terrorist threat to Erika Schmidt on J(§ 422) (3) making a terrorist threat to Matthew Zook on J(§ 422) (4) making a terrorist threat to Jordan Immer on J(§ 422) (5) attempting on July 31, 1999, to dissuade Erika Schmidt from reporting a crime to law enforcement officers (§ 136.1, subd. We shall also order correction of the abstract of judgment to stay the sentences on the section 422 counts (counts 3 and 4) and strike the prior prison term enhancement. We shall reverse the trial court's finding that the section 667.5 enhancement was true and remand to the trial court for a retrial of the enhancement. However, we agree with defendant that the trial court erroneously found true the prior prison term enhancement, which was founded on a federal conviction for possession of counterfeit United States currency.ĭefendant also raises other contentions of insufficient evidence, evidentiary error, instructional error, and sentencing error, all of which we reject in the unpublished portion of the opinion. In the published portion of the opinion, we consider and reject defendant's contention that there is no substantial evidence he made a verbal “statement” to support the terrorist threat convictions. The trial court found true and imposed a one-year enhancement for a prior prison term. (e)(1), and one count of assault and battery (§ 242). (e)), two counts of making terrorist threats (§ 422), 1 two counts of dissuading a witness from reporting a crime (§ 136.1, subd.(b)(1)), one count of battery (§ 243, subd. Shigemoto, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.ĭefendant Anthony Ronald Franz appeals from a judgment following conviction on one count of spousal battery (Pen.Code, § 243, subd. Weinberger, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Thomas Y. Anderson, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Michael J. ![]() Druliner, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Robert R. Kathryn Houck, Fresno, under appointment of the Court of Appeal for Defendant and Appellant Anthony Ronald Franz. Anthony Ronald FRANZ, Defendant and Appellant. Court of Appeal, Third District, California.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |