Opinion
Page 1174a
157 Cal.App.4th 1174a __ Cal.Rptr.3d__ THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JUAN RODRIGUEZ, Defendant and Appellant. B179600 California Court of Appeal, Second District, Fourth Division December 14, 2007Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA025392
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING
EPSTEIN, P. J., MANELLA, J.
It is ordered that the petition for rehearing, filed by respondent on December 6, 2007, (157 Cal.App.4th 14; ___Cal.Rptr.3d ___) is denied; and that the opinion filed herein on November 21, 2007, be modified in the following particulars, and the petition for rehearing is DENIED:
1. At page 3 [157 Cal.App.4th 17, advance report, 2d full par., line 3], the first sentence of the second full paragraph, beginning with "As to count 7, the court imposed . . . ," the phrase "(one-third the middle term under section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C))" is deleted and replaced with the following:
"(one-third the 10-year term under section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C))."
2. At page 5 [157 Cal.App.4th 18, advance report, 3d full par. lines 1-7], the first sentence of the second full paragraph, beginning with "Another court held that . . . ," is deleted.
3. At page 5 [157 Cal.App.4th 18, advance report, 3d full par., lines 7-8], the last sentence of the second full paragraph, "We agree," is deleted.
4. At page 8 [157 Cal.App. 4th 20, advance report, 3d full par., line 4], at the conclusion of the first sentence of the first full paragraph, beginning with "In a case analogous to" and ending with "the same incident." a footnote is inserted after "incident." as follows:
“4. In People v. Oates, supra, 32 Cal.4th 1048, the California Supreme Court criticized Moringlane for its failure to consider the issue of multiple victims, observing that the appellate court relied upon now disapproved authority prohibiting multiple enhancement in cases involving one act and multiple victims. (Oates, at pp. 1067-1068.) The court did not include Reeves in its criticism, noting that although Reeves relied upon Moringlane, it did not involve multiple victims. (People v. Oates, supra, at p. 1068, fn. 9.) Although
Page 1174b
there were multiple victims in the instant case, we apply the reasoning of Reeves to each victim. See footnote 3, ante.”
The remaining footnotes in the opinion are renumbered accordingly.
5. At page 11 [157 Cal.App.4th 22, advance report, fn. 7], footnote 7 of the original opinion, the final sentence, beginning with "Thus, the sentencing court . . . ," is deleted, and replaced with the following:
"Thus, the sentencing court may not choose to impose and stay the lesser enhancement of section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(A), once the elements of subdivision (b)(1)(C) are found to be true."
There is no change in the judgment.