Filed 6/24/21 P. v. Tanks CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE THE PEOPLE, B304432 Plaintiff and (Los Angeles County Respondent, Super. Ct. No. PA091031) v. RONALD OTIS TANKS, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David W. Stuart, Judge. Affirmed with directions. Sally Patrone Brajevich, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for the Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Analee J. Brodie, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________________ The jury found defendant and appellant Ronald O. Tanks guilty of attempted premeditated and deliberate murder. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a)/664 [count 1].)1 It found true the allegations that in the commission of the crime, Tanks personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)), and personally and intentionally discharged a firearm proximately causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). The trial court sentenced Tanks to life with the possibility of parole in count 1, plus 25 years to life for the section 12022.53, subdivision (d) enhancement, plus 3 years for the great bodily injury enhancement. Tanks contends that (1) his attorney’s actual conflict of interest requires reversal of his convictions; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion to relieve counsel; (3) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence; (4) the trial court erred by admitting his prior conviction while excluding the prior convictions of the victim and his 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 former co-defendant; (5) the trial court erred by admitting evidence of the victim’s mental state; (6) the prosecutor delayed in providing exculpatory evidence; (7) the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury; (8) these errors were cumulative; and (9) there are errors in the court’s minute order with respect to fines and fees. We agree with the parties that the minute order dated January 15, 2020, does not properly reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement at sentencing. We order the notations that the trial court imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $300 suspended parole revocation fine (§ 12022.45), a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), and a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70737) be stricken from the minute order. In all other respects, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. FACTS Prosecution Case at Trial Victim Testimony The victim, Juan Barajas,2 lived in an apartment with several other people. Barajas knew Tanks because he …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals