(Super. Ct. No. 10F08181)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hull , J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Sentenced to a state prison term of life without possibility of parole plus 13 years, defendant Joseph Dean Sullivan contends only that insufficient evidence supported his conviction on one count out of six. We affirm the judgment in its entirety.
A jury convicted defendant of residential burglary (count 1; Pen. Code, § 459), residential robbery (count 4; Pen. Code, § 211), carjacking (count 5; Pen. Code, § 215), possession of methamphetamine (count 6; Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), and administering an intoxicating substance to commit a felony (count 7; Pen. Code, § 222). The jury hung on count 3 (kidnapping for robbery; Pen. Code, § 209, subd. (b)(1)). The jury found true as to counts 1, 4, and 5 that defendant should have known the victim was over the age of 65 (Pen. Code, § 667.9, subd. (a)); as to counts 1 and 4, that defendant inflicted great bodily injury on the victim (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)); and as to count 2, that defendant caused bodily harm and confinement, exposing the victim to substantial likelihood of death (Pen. Code, § 209, subd. (a)).
The trial court sentenced defendant as follows: the upper term of six years on count 1 (residential burglary), plus three years for the great bodily injury enhancement and one year for the elderly victim enhancement; one year eight months on count 5 (carjacking), eight months on count 6 (possession of methamphetamine), and eight months on count 7 (administering an intoxicating substance to commit a felony), all consecutive to count 1; and life without possibility of parole on count 2 (kidnapping for robbery, plus the enhancements thereon). The court stayed sentence on count 4 (residential robbery) and the elderly victim enhancement on count 5 (Pen. Code, § 654).
Defendant contends insufficient evidence supported his conviction for carjacking because it was not shown that he took the victim's car from her immediate presence by force or fear, or that he had formed the intent to take her car when he initially accosted her. For reasons that follow, we disagree.
In 2010, Miriam K., a 68-year-old widow and registered nurse employed at Roseville Cardiology Medical Associates, lived alone in Orangevale. Defendant lived with his aunt about a mile from Miriam K.'s house; he did not have a car and got around on a bicycle.
At 7:10 a.m. on December 14, 2010, Miriam K. was about to leave for work. As she entered her attached garage and headed toward her Toyota Solara, defendant also entered the garage dressed in black with gloves on and a mask over his face. Saying "I never thought you were going to come out," he struck her up to 10 times until she fell to the floor.
Defendant ordered Miriam K. to hand over her wallet and to dump the contents of her purse on the floor. When she held on to her car keys, he ordered her to drop them. Afraid for her life, she complied with his demands.
After forcing Miriam K. to call in late for work, defendant ordered her to put her things back in her purse and to return to the house. Once inside, defendant closely controlled Miriam K.'s movements for almost two hours, forcing her to go from room to room. Even when he briefly left her immediate presence, she did not try to escape because she was sure he could stop her.
During the course of the morning, defendant asked Miriam K. where her jewelry and silverware were, then ordered her to take out her credit cards and call to obtain the balances on them. The defendant then ordered her to call for the balance on her bank ATM card and the amount she could withdraw per day, asking her as he did so, "How do you get money out of the Quick-Stop?" He demanded her personal identification number (PIN) and social ...