Filed 10/29/21 P. v. Boston CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta) ---- THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, C086940 v. (Super. Ct. No. 16F4160) STEVIE LEE BOSTON, Defendant and Appellant. A jury convicted defendant Stevie Lee Boston on five counts of forcible oral copulation, three counts of corporal injury to a cohabitant, two counts of kidnapping, two counts of robbery, one count of assault with a deadly weapon, and one count of assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury. The trial court sentenced defendant under the one strike law and the three strikes law to an aggregate determinate term of 50 years, plus an aggregate indeterminate term of 164-years-to-life. Defendant now appeals and contends (1) the prosecution’s use of a peremptory challenge on an African-American prospective juror violated his constitutional rights; (2) the trial court erred by closing the courtroom for the court trial on the prior conviction allegations; (3) defendant’s convictions on two counts of robbery must be reversed 1 because the thefts were by false pretenses, not by larceny; (4) the convictions for assault with a deadly weapon and assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury must be reversed because there was insufficient evidence defendant used a belt as a deadly weapon or in a manner likely to cause great bodily injury; (5) the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct by asking a witness questions on cross-examination about whether she considered invoking her privilege against self-incrimination and that, if he forfeited consideration of the issue on appeal by failing to object, his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel; (6) he was 20 years old at the time of the crimes and was denied equal protection because the Legislature determined that forcible sex offenders such as defendant who are subject to indeterminate sentencing under the one strike law are not eligible for youth offender parole hearings and potential release after serving 25 years even though intentional first degree murderers are eligible for such hearings and release; (7) the sentence imposed constitutes cruel and unusual punishment; (8) we must remand to provide the trial court with an opportunity to exercise its newly- enacted discretion concerning whether to strike or dismiss defendant’s prior serious felony juvenile adjudication under Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1);1 and (9) we must strike the five one-year terms imposed for defendant’s prior prison terms under former section 667.5, subdivision (b), which has been amended since defendant’s sentencing. We conclude (1) the prosecution’s use of a peremptory challenge on an African- American prospective juror did not violate defendant’s constitutional rights; (2) the circumstances, including a post-jury-verdict disturbance in the courtroom involving defendant and others, justified closing the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals