P. v. Nichols 1/15/08 CA2/2

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2008 » P. v. Nichols 1/15/08 CA2/2

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: B190205

Case Date: 04/16/2008

Preview:Filed 1/15/08 P. v. Nichols CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRANDON CHARLES NICHOLS et al., Defendants and Appellants.

B190205 (c/w B194024) (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA254738)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Lance A. Ito, Judge. Affirmed and affirmed as modified. Edward H. Schulman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant, Brandon Charles Nichols. Charlotte E. Costan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant, Lawrence Randel Fuller. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Jason Tran, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

______________

On October 10, 2003, appellants Brandon Charles Nichols (Nichols), a 76 East Coast Crips gang member, and Lawrence Randel Fuller (Fuller), a gang associate, committed two drive-by shootings minutes apart in Fuller's Caprice automobile. The youths apparently were attempting to shoot rival Florencia 13 gang members in Florencia 13 territory. No rival Florencia 13 gang members were wounded. But during the first shooting, Nichols shot Araceli C., a female bystander, with a high-powered rifle. Several minutes later and several blocks away, driving by another corner in Florencia 13 territory, Nichols committed another unprovoked shooting, fatally wounding 68-year-old Carmelo Montes. Montes was standing on a corner near his two grandchildren and his son-in-law, A.O., when he was shot. A.O. got into a car and followed the Caprice. At an intersection, Nichols got out of the Caprice and aimed his rifle at A.O. who turned and returned home. Nichols and Fuller were arrested and made admissions indicating that Fuller was the driver and Nichols the shooter. Juries convicted appellants of murder and other offenses, and the trial court sentenced appellants to life and to determinate terms as we set out on page 4, infra. Appellants filed appeals from the judgments, making various contentions that are summarized on pages 4 and 5, infra. We order Nichols's judgment modified to strike an unauthorized $10,000 parole revocation restitution fine, and order that Fuller's abstract of judgment be amended to properly state his prison term. Otherwise, the judgments are affirmed.1 THE CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCING The trial court ordered a partial unitary trial with separate juries.2 On appeal, appellants were assigned different case numbers. However, as appellants were tried during the same proceeding with separate juries, we ordered the cases consolidated on appeal. Originally, the trial court ordered separate juries in a partial unitary trial to preserve Fuller's Aranda/Bruton rights. (Bruton v. United States (1968) 391 U.S. 123 (Bruton); People v. Aranda (1965) 63 Cal.2d 518, 529-530 (Aranda); see also People v. Fletcher (1996) 13 Cal.4th 451, 468.) The separate juries heard the same evidence except the appellants' admissions and some gang evidence. As the prosecution's 2
2 1

I.

The Convictions Nichols was convicted of the first degree murder of Montes (Pen. Code,

Download P. v. Nichols 1/15/08 CA2/2.pdf