Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People v. Zayid Wolfe

December 16, 2011

THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
ZAYID WOLFE, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.



(Super. Ct. Nos. 09F05970, 08F05808 & 07F06487)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Duarte , J.

P. v. Wolfe

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

Defendant Zayid Wolfe was sentenced to six years eight months in state prison for conviction by jury verdict of three counts of second degree robbery, together with true findings as to three corresponding allegations that a principal was armed with a firearm.

On appeal, defendant contends the true findings must be reversed because the jury instructions failed to include the requirement that defendant know his fellow perpetrators were armed. Defendant further contends that the court erred when it imposed consecutive sentences as to two of the three counts of robbery.

As we will explain, there was no error. We shall affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On July 14, 2009, John Frasier, Samit Patel, and Mark Van Ornum (the victims) were using a rented music studio in Sacramento. Between 8:30 and 9:00 p.m., defendant and two other men, one of them co-defendant Peter Otten, came to the studio, talked about music for about 10 minutes and then left and went to an adjacent studio.

Shortly thereafter, the victims left the building. As they stood outside the front door, a silver Buick driven by defendant pulled quickly out of a parking space with its headlights off and stopped in the middle of the parking lot, poised to exit. Otten and an unidentified man got out of the Buick and approached the victims. Otten pushed Patel against a car, held a gun to his back and said, "Take off your pants" and "give me all your shit." Otten struck Patel with the gun several times, once in the face. Patel complied and took his pants off.

The unidentified man struck Van Ornum in the head. He took his cash and car keys. He then approached Frasier, backed him into the doorway, pointed a gun in his face, and told him to take his pants off as well. Frasier emptied his pockets and threw the contents on the ground. The man struck Frasier several times in the head and told him again to take off his pants. Frasier complied. Otten and the unidentified man got into the Buick and it sped off with defendant driving. Frasier later identified defendant and Otten in photo lineups.

Defendant ultimately admitted to detectives that he drove the Buick and was at the scene of the robbery, but denied knowing Otten and the unidentified man had guns or were planning a robbery, claiming he thought the robbery was a fight between his companions and the victims.

Defendant was charged by amended information with three counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code,*fn1 § 211--counts 1, 2 and 3), one count of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)--count 4), and one count of being an accessory after the fact to robbery (§ 32--count 5). The information also alleged that, as to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.