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.

People v. Jackio

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Sacramento

April 30, 2015

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
LAWRENCE JACKIO, Defendant and Appellant.

[CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION [*]]

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, No. 11F04362 Michael A. Savage, Judge.

Page 446

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 447

COUNSEL

Janet J. Gray, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Stephen G. Herndon and Darren K. Indermill, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

NICHOLSON, Acting P. J.

Convicted of attempted murder and other crimes associated with a home invasion and sentenced to both determinate and indeterminate terms in state prison, defendant Lawrence Jackio contends on appeal that his waiver of his right to counsel, under which he represented himself at trial, was inconsistent with his Sixth Amendment rights because the trial court did not outline the possible terms of imprisonment for the

Page 448

various crimes and enhancements charged against him. Instead, the trial court simply advised defendant that he risked life in prison if he was convicted.

In the published part of this opinion, we conclude that, under the circumstances, the trial court’s advisement adequately warned defendant of the risks of self-representation.

In the unpublished part of this opinion, we find no merit in defendant’s remaining contentions. We therefore affirm the judgment but remand to the trial court to correct a clerical error in the abstract of judgment.

FACTS

We recount the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdicts. For example, even though neither of the victims was able to identify defendant as one of the assailants, we refer to him by name from the outset because there was ample evidence that he was one of the assailants.

Early in the morning on June 16, 2011, defendant and Rashid Deary-Smith entered the garage of a house where Martez Laster and Antonia Branch lived together with their one-year-old son. Between 2:00 and 3:00 a.m., Branch, who had been out that night, approached the residence in her car with her son in the backseat. She opened the garage door with a remote control from her car and drove into the garage. In the garage, Branch closed the garage door with the remote control and went around her car to get her son out of the backseat. Defendant and Deary-Smith approached her, pointed guns at her, and told her to open the door leading into the house. One of the men, probably Deary-Smith, hit Branch in the head with his gun, opening up a wound that required five staples to close.

Laster, who was inside the house, heard the commotion in the garage and grabbed his.40-caliber handgun. He went to the door that connects the garage to the interior of the house, unlocked it, and began to open it. As he was opening the door, he was rushed by defendant and Deary-Smith. Laster took a couple of steps back and was shot in the side, so he returned fire. Defendant and Deary-Smith retreated into the garage.

Both defendant and Deary-Smith had been hit by gunfire from Laster. Deary-Smith was hit in the head and fell to the floor of the garage, and defendant, who was hit in the leg, escaped out the side door of the garage. Meanwhile, Branch got back into her car, put the car in reverse, and backed up through the closed garage door.

A neighbor saw defendant flee. Defendant limped along, leaving a trail of blood and dragging himself to a car. He got into the car and drove away. A

Page 449

subsequent medical examination revealed that defendant was hit twice in the leg, with one of the bullets breaking his femur. Defendant had gunshot residue on his hands and pants. The DNA in the trail of blood from the house to the car matched defendant’s DNA profile. Also along the trail of blood between the house and the car, defendant dropped a nine-millimeter handgun.

When law enforcement arrived at the house, Deary-Smith was still on the floor of the garage. He had zip ties in his pocket, and a loaded.45-caliber semiautomatic handgun was on the ground next to his head. No spent.45-caliber casings were found at the house – evidence that Deary-Smith did not fire the gun. Separate DNA samples from the gun matched Deary-Smith’s and Branch’s DNA profiles.

Later that day, when the owner of the car that defendant had driven away from the house looked into her car, she found blood and defendant’s wallet. The blood was also identified as defendant’s through DNA testing.

Two expended casings from a nine-millimeter gun were found, one in the house and one in the garage. They matched the gun left by defendant as he dragged himself to the car after the shootings.

Defendant testified in his own defense. He admitted that he was at the house in question when the gunfire erupted. He claimed, however, that he had taken Deary-Smith there to meet Deary-Smith’s cousin. While defendant was waiting in front of the house, he saw someone back out through the garage door, heard ...


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.