Nivac

Its sponsored by Newnan-based United We Stand for Positive Results and the Newnan Housing Authority.

The event is about fellowship and community, said long-time organizer Clarence C-Bo Bohannon.

Its about people turning their neighborhoods back into communities said Bohannon. When I was growing up, everybody was like family. Thats the whole theme of it: a community/ family reunion.

Its also about appreciating the senior citizens. When I was coming up, the most important people in the community were the senior citizens, he said.

But somehow these days, that has changed, Bohannon said. Young people dont have the respect for the seniors that they used to have, he said.

That is why we appreciate our senior citizens. They are our story tellers — they are the ones that tell us what happened when momma was a little kid, or uncle such and such was in high school, Bohannon said.

The annual event is also an opportunity for various politicians and candidates to come out and meet folks.

We dont endorse anybody. We invite Republicans, Democrats, Independents, whoever wants to show up. It doesnt matter, Bohannon said. Were just open. The human family, is pretty much what it is, he said.

Donations of various items for the picnic are appreciated.

For more information or to help or donate, contact Glynnis Tanner at 770-253-6461, ext. 106, or e-mail gtanner@numailorg

article source

In July the oldest bottles of champagne were found in a shipwreck at the bottom of the Baltic Sea off the coast of the Aring;land Islands (autonomous region of Finland). Recently the divers have discovered a few more bottles lying next to the 200-year-old champagne. While extracting the surface of one of the bottles exploded under the pressure, and a dark liquid poured from the inside. It turned out - there was beer in the bottles.

- At this point, we believe that it is the oldest bottle of beer in the world says Rainer Juslin of Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture of Aring;land. in an interview with CNN. It seems that Alandres not only managed to save the worlds oldest champagne, but also the oldest beer that is still safe to drink.

Discovery excited the authorities of the Aring;land Islands, who have already started dialogue with the local brewers investigating whether it would be possible to reconstruct the recipe of the worlds oldest beer.

The ship with cargo, including champagne and beer, was possibly in the seas between 1800 and 1830, coursing from Copenhagen to St. Petersburg. The historians do not yet know exactly where the ship came from or the circumstances under which it sank.

The shipwreck is now at a depth of 50 meters between one of the Aring;land islands and the coast of Finland. Rainer Juslin says that the underwater environment weas almost ideal to keep the alcohol in good condition. The temperature on the seabed is constant - 4-5 degrees Celsius - and the lack of light slows down the spoilage of liquids.

According to the experts, a bottle of 200 years old champagne can be worth tens of thousands of euros. The worlds oldest beer has not yet been valued. Additionally, the shipwreck still contains various items - but the process of putting them on the ground will continue for many months.

article source

PEOPLE v. OAKES

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JOSEPH ANDRES OAKES, Defendant and Appellant.

No. A125851.

Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Two.

Filed August 31, 2010.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

HAERLE, Acting PJ

I. INTRODUCTION

After two successive trials in early 2009, appellant was convicted by a jury on all three counts charged in an information, ie, with attempted burglary of an automobile (Pen. Code, sect;sect; 664 459),^[
1
] misdemeanor theft with a prior (sect; 666), and resisting arrest (sect; 148, subd. (a)(1)). The jury also found, during the second trial, that a prior strike allegation in the information was true. The trial court suspended imposition of a sentence and, instead, placed appellant on probation subject to numerous conditions. However, less than two months thereafter, the trial court revoked probation on the motion of the probation department and because of appellants admission of a violation of probation.

Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, appellant now asks that we examine the record of his two trials and the court proceedings before and afterwards, and determine if there are any issues deserving of further briefing. We have done so, find none, and hence affirm the judgment of the trial court.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

By an information filed on December 30, 2008, appellant was charged with the three crimes and with the one prior strike noted above.

His first trial was held in February 2009 after which the jury returned verdicts of guilty on the second and third counts but hung on the first count, resulting in a retrial on that count in April 2009. At the conclusion of that trial, the jury found appellant guilty of the attempted automobile burglary charged in the first count of the information and also found the prior strike allegation to be true.

We will briefly summarize the testimony given in the two trials, as the witnesses and their testimony was substantially the same in the two trials.

The first witness in both cases was a man, David Johnson, who lived across the street from a parking lot which served both a restaurant and a beauty salon on Sixth Street in Santa Rosa. On the afternoon of October 8, 2008, he saw a man trying to open the doors to several cars parked in that lot, and called the police to report what he had seen. When two police officers, Officers Marconi and Collins arrived, Johnson directed them to the back of the parking lot and identified appellant as the person he had seen trying to break into the several cars.

Officer Marconi testified that, when he and Officer Collins arrived at the lot at about 3:10 pm on that day, in response to a call reporting apparent attempts at automobile burglary, they saw appellant in the bed of a pick-up truck trying to open the rear window of that vehicle and striking the glass with his hand in the course of that attempt. Collins drew his pistol and told appellant to put his hands up and to stop what he was doing. Appellant attempted to flee, and then resisted arrest until those two officers, assisted by two others who had just arrived, subdued him and handcuffed him. Officer Marconi searched a backpack appellant was carrying and found eight disposable cameras as well as a bag of Goldfish crackers. Another witness at both trials, a woman who had parked her car in that parking lot, identified both the cameras and the crackers as items that had been in her Plymouth van when she had parked and locked it (albeit with one window partially down because of the heat).

The owner of the pickup truck in which appellant had first been seen by the police officers who first arrived testified at both trials that she had parked her vehicle in that lot, had locked it, did not know appellant, and had not given him permission to enter the bed of that vehicle.

Another Santa Rosa police officer, Officer Poueu, testified at both trials that he had removed a black backpack from appellants shoulder after he had been handcuffed by Officers Marconi and Collins, and was present when Johnson identified appellant as the person he had seen trying to break into several vehicles. Officer Poueu took appellant to the police station and Mirandized^[
2
] him. Appellant told Poueu that he had found the various items in his backpack in a garbage can near the parking lot, and had only been trying to find a place to sleep. Poueu did not find any tool in appellants possession that could be used to break into vehicles.

As noted above, the jury in the first trial convicted appellant on counts two and three, ie, misdemeanor theft and resisting arrest, but was unable to reach a verdict on the attempted automobile burglary count. About two months later, after a four-day trial, the second jury convicted appellant on that count and found the prior strike allegation to be true.

On June 24, 2009, the court sentenced appellant. It first denied his motion to reduce the count one violation to a misdemeanor pursuant to section 17, subdivision (b), but granted his motion to dismiss the prior strike allegation. It then suspended imposition of a sentence on the count one conviction and placed appellant on supervised probation for a period of three (3) years, subject to various and sundry conditions, the most significant of which was that he serve a one-year term in county jail and, thereafter complete a residential treatment program and not use alcohol or controlled substances.

On August 6, 2009, the probation department filed a request for summary revocation of probation, alleging that appellant had been released from the Redwood Gospel Mission because he was found to be an unsuitable candidate for that program. The filing recommended that appellants probation be revoked.

On August 14, 2000, appellant admitted a violation of probation, and the court ordered that he serve an additional 50 days in county jail, with credit for 10 days already served, at the conclusion of which appellants probation would terminate unsuccessfully.

On August 20, 2009, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgment entered on June 24, 2009.

III. DISCUSSION

Unlike most Wende appeals we deal with, here appellants counsel has identified four issues, the first three involving instructions given (or not given) in the second trial and the fourth regarding whether appellant was prejudiced by any such instructional error.

First of all, appellants counsel raises the issue of whether the trial courts instructions failed to clearly inform the jury that appellant must have specifically intended to commit the required act of entering a locked vehicle and whether, if so, it is reasonably likely the jury misunderstood the applicable law in violation of federal due process.

We are clear that the answer to this question is in the negative; the jury was instructed with both CALCRIM Nos. 460 and 1700, and they were given to the jury back-to-back. The first, as generally phrased, defines an attempt at any crime, and was correctly modified by the trial court to direct it at the crime of auto burglary. We see no errors in the trial courts modification of CALCRIM No. 460 to cover the crime of attempted auto burglary. And that court correctly followed that instruction with CALCRIM No. 1700, which covers burglary generally, and modified it correctly to cover auto burglary.

The trial court did not, apparently, provide the jury with a definition of the word theft used in CALCRIM No. 1700, but we cannot conceive, given the testimony presented and the very short time the second jury deliberated on the offense charged in the first count, that there was any prejudice in the failure to define a term as well known as theft.^[
3
] Additionally, apparently trial defense counsel never asked for the inclusion of such a definitional instruction, and no such instruction was among those the trial court refused to give.

Nor, finally, can we conceive that there was any prejudice to appellant in the trial courts giving of CALCRIM No. 1821, regarding the lesser-included offense of Tampering with a Vehicle. First of all, and as appellants Wende counsel correctly notes, this instruction was specifically requested by appellants trial counsel and, secondly, if anything the giving of such an instruction allowed the jury to find appellant guilty of a lesser crime than attempted automobile burglary (which, of course, it did not do).

We find no issues deserving of further briefing.

IV. DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur:

Lambden, J.

Richman, J.

article source

In the video Jay Wilson, the game director for Diablo 3, explains that the artisan NPCs dont just offer their services when you jump into the game, you have to earn their trust and loyalty by playing the role of your hero. That basically means youll have to crank out a few tasks for them before they choose to help you out.

The artisan lends you their services by crafting in variations of their expertise. The blacksmith is the main focus in the explanation of the artisans, though they do mention the other two artisans — the jeweler and the mystic. Once you earn their loyalty, they will be with you as you travel through each town in Sanctuary.

Once youve earned an artisans trust, you will notice they set up shop in the towns you visit. The artisan becomes a vendor, offering products based on their trade. In addition to the buying and selling of items, they can craft items as well. The blacksmith can craft weaponry and armor, as well as sockets in any item. The mystic can enchant items for you and identify attributes for magic items. The jeweler can pull gems from sockets without damaging them, combine them into better gems and craft items like amulets.

The artisans can craft items relative to their trade for you with materials you provide, which you get by breaking down various items into usable materials using a Horadric Cube-like device. The quality of the materials is reflective of the level of item you break down. You can break unwanted items down anywhere in the game, so you wont have to run back to town to clear up your inventory.

Blizzard didnt want to make the item results so predictable, so crafting is similar to making a gamble to an extent. The materials will be vague in revealing what attributes they provide when crafting an item by only revealing a range of the potential features.

As the artisans skills are upgraded, their in-town camp will evolve in appearance as well. In the video you see the blacksmiths basic wagon, surrounded by items on blankets and anvils spread around. Once fully upgraded, the blacksmiths camp gets embellished with fancier aesthetics such as ornate decor, fires, chains and stone detail. Each artisan has their own individual levels and of upgrading, but you can maintain and upgrade the three artisans simultaneously.

Check out the full video below for a visual representation to the artisan system, as well as some satisfying gameplay footage at the end.

The more I see regarding Diablo 3, the more eager I am to play the game. The artisan system is pretty amazing in regards to customization and item enhancement. You wont be stuck with that lame sword for so long until you level up. In the interim, you can pop a socket in and throw a gem in there or enchant the item so its not so dull and useless.

Id like to point out the amazing detail in the video as well. The characters movement, even when standing in place, is fluid and clean. The environment is alive in its own right..

Even the combat teaser at the end has so much to look at. The detail of the environment is ridiculous — the tattered flags flapping in the wind, the raging river below reflecting a rainbow, and the spell-casting details are just a few of the highlights. This game promises to be a visual delight.

What do you think, Ranters? How do you feel about the new artisan and crafting system? Tells us your expectations, hopes and predictions for Diablo 3 in the comments!

Diablo 3 is expected to release sometime in 2011 for PC and Mac.

Source: Kotaku

article source

August 31, 2010
Arrest made in violent May robbery

By Emily Burton
Register News Writer

RICHMOND
One of three people accused of committing an armed robbery in May has been arrested, said Lary Brock, Richmond police chief.

Brandon Jarbo Thomas, 30, of Memphis, Tenn., was arrested Friday and charged with first-degree robbery, a Class B felony.

On May 18, Thomas and Tanu Kenya Dyer, 35, of Lexington, entered JaRus New Fashions, 948 Red House Road and after a brief argument, demanded money from store employees, Brock said.

One of the suspects was armed with an assault rifle type weapon that he used to strike one of the employees. A second suspect was armed with a taser/stun gun type device that he used on the other employee, Brock said.

The three men made off with an undisclosed amount of cash, Brock said.

If convicted, Thomas faces up to 20 years in prison.

He is being held in the Madison County Detention Center on two bonds totaling $150,000 cash.

Dyer is accused of participating in the robbery and fleeing the scene in a Pontiac Aztek. He was arrested in July and remains held in the Madison County Detention Center.

Police are still seeking the third person who allegedly participated in the robbery.

Thomas is facing first-degree robbery and second-degree assault charges in an unrelated case. Brock said. Thomas is accused of being one of three men who forced their way into a residence in the 100 block of Lassiter Drive on July 22.

A woman inside the residence was struck with an object believed to be a firearm, Brock said.

Counterfeit bills

Two Harlan men were arrested Friday after they allegedly attempted to pass counterfeit bills at Sonic on Big Hill Avenue, Brock said.

Roger W. Sizemore, 31, and Christopher D. Bargo, 34, are accused of trying to pay for two small drinks with a counterfeit $50 bill.

A search of the mens vehicle allegedly revealed a small amount of marijuana, a Seroquez tablet and various drug paraphernalia. Both men were charged with first-degree criminal possession of a forged instrument a Class D felony, possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of marijuana, both Class A misdemeanors.

Sizemore also was charged with illegal possession of a legend drug, a Class A misdemeanor.

Bargo is being held in the Madison County Detention Center on a $5,000 cash bond. Sizemore is being held on a $10,000 unsecured bond.

If convicted, Bargo and Sizemore each face up to five years in prison.

Clothes stolen

On Saturday, police arrested David L. Dowling, 31, of Dixie Plaza mobile home park, after he allegedly stole a bag of clothes from a patron of McDonalds, 864 Eastern Bypass. A patron told police he had left the bag inside the restaurant while he went outside to wait for a ride and that when he went back inside, the bag was gone.

An investigation led police to Dowling as a suspect. Police contacted Dowling at his residence, where the stolen items were allegedly discovered and Dowling was arrested. He is charged with theft by unlawful taking over $500, a Class D felony. He is being held in the Madison County Detention Center on a $2,500 cash bond. If convicted, he faces up to five years in prison.

Theft arrest

On Friday, Richmond police arrested Jerry W. Edington, 33, of Bogie Mill Road. Police located him in the 100 block of Parrish Avenue, Brock said, and he was arrested on two bench warrants on contempt of court. Earlier on Friday, a woman told police that $600 cash had been stolen from her living room table and that Edington had been inside the residence and then left abruptly. He was charged with theft by unlawful taking over $500, a Class D felony, Brock said.

Other crimes:

A resident of the 100 block of ORoarke Avenue told police that early Aug. 22, someone had entered his vehicle and stolen an unknown brand stereo face plate, valued at $50. The vehicle was unsecured at the time of the theft.

The front door to a home in the 600 block of Cottonwood Drive was damaged between 9 and 11:30 am Friday.

The rear drivers-side window was smashed out of a silver 2002 Mercury Cougar at about 12:57 pm Friday while it was parked in front of an apartment in the 2000 block of Edgewood Drive.

The front door to a residence in the 100 block of Overland Drive was pried open between 8 am and 7 pm Thursday. Nothing was reported stolen.

Several items were stolen from the trunk of a car parked next to the baseball fields on Lake Reba Drive. The windows had been left down and the vehicle unlocked, although the stolen items were in the vehicles trunk. Reported stolen was a green purse, a black wallet, $30 cash, a checkbook, four credit cards, three social security cards, a JL audio speaker and subwoofer and one purple Sony Xplod amplifier. The stolen items are valued at $283.

The drivers-side window was smashed out of a vehicle parked in the 1100 block of Heathcliff, when it allegedly was struck with a large concrete block overnight Aug. 24. The drivers seat was damaged by the block, and a purse, wallet and one credit card were stolen. The items are valued at a total of valued at a total of $230.

Sometime between Aug. 13 and Friday, two Craftsman weed trimmers were stolen from a garage attached to a home in the 200 block of Palm Hill Drive. They are valued at a total of $240.

A black Magellan global positioning system, valued at $200, was stolen from the glove box of a red 2001 Toyota Corolla, parked in front of an apartment in the 600 block of Four Mile Road overnight Thursday.

Between 9:30 and 11:40 pm Saturday, a black Escort radar detector valued at $550 was stolen from a silver 2003 Chevrolet Impala parked in the lot of Debs, 2091 Lantern Ridge Drive.

A TomTom global positioning system, a purse, a wallet, three credit cards and a checkbook were stolen from a vehicle parked in the lot of Belks, 2181 Lantern Ridge Dr., between 9:45 and 11:45 pm Saturday. The stolen items are valued at a total of $225.

On Saturday, a woman told police someone had stolen toddler-sized clothing from her vehicle that evening, while it was parked in the lot of Richmond Center, Lantern Ridge Drive. The outfit was purchased from Childrens Place and is valued at $31.

Between July 28 and Saturday, a .22 Caliber Ruger MKII pistol, serial number 217-37440, was stolen from an apartment in the 400 block of Big Hill Avenue. The gun is valued at $190.

The front-bedroom window was reported smashed out and an apartment in the 100 block of South Killarney Drive was ransacked overnight Thursday, and $200 cash, a Kodak digital camera and a Kodak camcorder were reported stolen. The items are valued at a total of $300. Including the cash, the total value of the theft is reported as $500. It is unclear how entry was made into the apartment, Brock said. The windows and front door were locked, according to a police report.

A resident of the 400 block of Smith Village Drive told police her black Dell Inspirion laptop computer with charger, valued at $526 had been stolen from her unlocked apartment between 8 and 9:30 am Thursday.

A resident of an apartment in the 600 block of Hampton Way told police someone had broken into his residence Wednesday and had stolen a .25-06-caliber Remington rifle, model 700 and a 12-gauge Franchi shotgun. Both guns are valued at a total of $1,200.

On Saturday, the owner of Roberts Insurance, in the 500 block of W. Main St., told police that overnight Friday, skateboarders had damaged property outside his business. The hand rails had been torn down, the stair railing broken and concrete blocks moved around the parking lot in order to create jump ramps. Total damage is estimated at $1,000.

A resident of the 500 block of Mahaffey Drive, told police that sometime Saturday afternoon someone had broken into their apartment by forcing open the front door and had stolen a small safe containing $900 cash. The safe is valued at $100, and the total value of items stolen is $1,000.

A patron of Comfort Suites, 2007 Colby Taylor Dr., told police someone had stolen items from a Load Runner enclosed trailer he had left in the parking lot, between Friday and Sunday, by cutting a padlock from the hitch. Reported stolen were: three bicycles, a window air conditioning unit, a tool box on a roller chest and various items of clothing. The stolen items are valued at $2,650.

Anyone with information on these crimes is asked to call the Richmond Police Department at 623-1162 or 623-8911.

Emily Burton may be reached at eburton@richmondregister.com or at 624-6694. Follow Emily on Twitter at RR_EBurton@ twitter.com.

article source

Caroline Giuliani, a Harvard senior, was Tuesday ordered to complete one day of community service with the Department of Sanitation, after she was caught stealing about $100-worth of Dior cosmetics earlier this month.

What caused Caroline Giuliani to shoplift?
The case stems from Caroline’s arrest on Aug. 4, when security cameras at an Upper East Side Sephora store caught her quietly sneaking away various items including Aqua Cream, Dior Skinflash Primer, Bliss hydroderm cream, a rollerball funnel and a hairnet, into her jacket pocket.

Authorities escorted her out of the store in handcuffs.

Left with a warning
Criminal Court Judge Jennifer Schecter warned Caroline to “stay out of trouble,” and decided to adjourn her case in contemplation of dismissal. It means Caroline’s case would be dismissed if she completes her community service and avoids getting into any other mess for six months.

Stay out of trouble and avoid re-arrest. In six months the matter will be dismissed and sealed,” the judge told the 21-year-old.

According to Manhattan district attorneys office, the terms of the dismissal were not unusual for a first-time offender with a low dollar-value theft.

Giuliani, dressed in a gray outfit, appeared briefly before Schecter to accept the deal. She was accompanied by her mom, former First Lady of New York Donna Hanover, and step-dad Ed Oster.

Caroline kept quite through the hearing and did not respond to reporters questions about the motive behind her apology. “We are not going to have a comment for the press,” said her lawyer, Isabelle Kirshner.??

According to Manhattan district attorneys office, the terms of the dismissal were not unusual for a first-time offender with a low dollar-value theft.

Caroline is supposed to complete her community service before Nov. 4.

She is a theater major at Harvard, and is scheduled to be back at school to begin classes on Wednesday.

Far from Rudy Giuliani
Rudy Giuliani, known to be a hard-charging prosecutor and no-nonsense mayor of New York City, was not present for his daughter’s hearing.

Caroline is known to be at odds with her father and has reportedly been estranged from him for years. She made much news in 2007, when she listed herself as a member of Barack Obamas Facebook group, “Barack Obama (One Million Strong for Barack),” while her father was running for the Republican presidential nomination.

article source

DALLAS, Sep 1, 2010 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) –
MicroStockProfit.com announces an investment report featuring DryShips Inc.
/quotes/comstock/15*!drys/quotes/nls/drys
(DRYS
4.40,
-0.02,
-0.45%)
. The report includes financial, comparative and investment analyses, and industry information you need to know to make an educated investment decision.

The full report is available at: www.microstockprofit.com/lp/DRYS

DryShips Inc. (DRYS) owns, through its subsidiaries, a fleet of 40 drybulk carriers comprised of seven Capesize, 29 Panamax, two Supramax, and two newbuilding drybulk vessels, as well as two ultra-deep-water semi-submersible drilling rigs and two ultra-deep-water newbuilding drillships. The Company’s drybulk fleet carries a variety of drybulk commodities including coal, iron ore, and grains, bauxite, phosphate, fertilizers and steel products. DRYS employs its drybulk vessels under period time charters, on bareboat charters, in the spot charter market and in drybulk carrier pools. Its subsidiaries include Ocean Rig ASA, DrillShips Investment Inc. and Primelead Shareholders Inc.

Message Board Search for DRYS: http://www.boardcentral.com/boards/DRYS

In the report, the analyst notes:

“For the second quarter of 2010, the Company reported net income of $8.7 million, or $0.02 basic and diluted earnings per share. Included in the second-quarter 2010 results are various items, totaling $71.7 million, or $0.28 per share. Excluding these items, net income amounted to $80.4 million or $0.30 per share. Included in the second-quarter 2010 results are non-cash amortization of debt issuance costs, including those relating to the Company’s convertible senior notes, totaling $7.9 million, or $0.03 per share.

“DRYS recently announced that the Annual Meeting of Shareholders will be held at the Company’s offices located at 80 Kifissias Avenue, 15125, Amaroussion, Athens, Greece on Monday, September 6th, 2010, at 1 p.m. Athens time.”

To read the entire report visit: www.microstockprofit.com/lp/DRYS

See what investors are saying about DRYS at http://www.stockhideout.com

Get breaking news on DRYS at http://thestockmarketwatch.com/

MicroStockProfit.com is a small-cap research and investment commentary provider. MicroStockProfit.com strives to provide a balanced view of many promising small-cap companies that would otherwise fall under the radar of the typical Wall Street investor. We provide investors with an excellent first step in their research and due diligence by providing daily trading ideas, and consolidating the public information available on them. For more information on MicroStockProfit please visit: http://www.microstockprofit.com

MicroStockProfit.com Disclosure

MicroStockProfit.com is not a registered investment advisor and nothing contained in any materials should be construed as a recommendation to buy or sell any securities. MicroStockProfit.com is a Web site wholly owned by BlueWave Advisors, LLC. Neither MicroStockProfit.com nor its affiliates have a beneficial interest in the mentioned company; nor have they received compensation of any kind for any of the companies listed in this communication. Please read our report and visit our Web site, MicroStockProfit.com, for complete risks and disclosures.

This news release was distributed by GlobeNewswire, www.globenewswire.com

SOURCE: MicroStockProfit.com

CONTACT: MicroStockProfit.com
Brian Johnson
1-888-307-2850
info@microstockprofit.com

(C) Copyright 2010 GlobeNewswire, Inc. All rights reserved.

article source

A store manager for Gerbes Supermarket reported a fraud involving altered checks to Columbia Police on Aug. 30.

According to a CPD news release, two suspects had used altered checks to purchase various items and receive money back. Suspects used the name, “Jeffrey Bell,” and one address for both checks.

Officers have looked into similar fraud reports involving Bell and found he has an active warrant for forgery in Boone County with a $2,500 bond. He also has a parole absconder warrant without a bond and is a suspect in several other fraud incidents still under investigation, the news release stated.

article source

PEOPLE v. HERNANDEZ

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
SAMUEL HERNANDEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

No. B213570.

Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Three.

Filed August 31, 2010.

Maxine Weksler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Keith H. Borjon and Sharlene A. Honnaka, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

CROSKEY, J.

On November 20, 2006, defendant and appellant Samuel Hernandez, an adult, armed himself with two knives and waited just inside his house for his mother, Mrs. Alicia Hernandez, to return home from work. When she arrived home, defendant attacked her immediately after she opened the front door to their house and pursued her down their driveway, stabbing her 86 times and killing her. During the court trial that followed, defendant was convicted of lying-in-wait murder, and a special circumstance allegation of lying-in-wait was found true. The trial court then sentenced defendant to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Defendant appeals both his lying-in-wait murder conviction and the lying-in-wait special circumstance finding. He contends that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution because the lying-in-wait special circumstance does not narrow the class of offenders deserving greater punishment in a principled manner. He also contends that there is insufficient evidence to support either his conviction of lying-in-wait murder or the lying-in-wait special circumstance finding. We disagree and affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND^[
1
]

On the night of November 19, 2006, defendant was taking a shower around 11 pm while Mrs. Hernandez was trying to sleep. As she had on many other nights when defendants showers interfered with her sleep, Mrs. Hernandez turned off the water using a valve outside the house. Defendant did not object. As usual, he simply returned to his room.^[
2
] Mrs. Hernandez left the house around 4:00 am and went to work.

Defendant followed a consistent routine when he waited for Mrs. Hernandez to return home from work. He would sit in a chair for hours behind the front door of the house, at times talking incomprehensibly and brushing himself off. When she returned from work, Mrs. Hernandez brought defendant tacos or hamburgersthe only food that he would eat. He then ate in his chair, as he refused to enter the kitchen for any reason.

On this particular day, something was different. Defendant obtained two knives, probably from the kitchen, while he was waiting for Mrs. Hernandez to return home from work. When Mrs. Hernandez returned home around 2:00 pm with food from Del Taco, she was attacked by defendant with at least one knife as she walked in the front door. Defendant pursued her down their concrete driveway and into the street, stabbing and beating her as she tried to escape. She died near a truck in the street from fatal stab wounds. Defendant continued to stab and beat her for a short time after her death. A coroner later determined that she had been stabbed 86 times45 times before her death, 20 times at the time of her death, and 21 times after her death.

Lorena Calderon, who lived approximately eight houses down, saw defendant attacking someone on the ground near the truck and called 911. When Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff Wayne Goodrich arrived shortly thereafter, he saw Mrs. Hernandez lying on the ground next to the truck and called the paramedics. Defendant came down the concrete driveway and laid down on the ground. When Deputy Goodrich asked what had happened, defendant told him that he had stabbed Mrs. Hernandez and that he had knives. Deputy Goodrichs examination of defendant revealed blood on his hands and shoes and a bloody knife in the back pocket of his pants.

After defendant was secured, a search of the premises was conducted. Blood splatters were discovered on the interior wall immediately next to the front door of the house. A soft drink cup had been dropped in the doorway, after which a trail of blood and dropped items, including money, keys, a cell phone, and a paper bag with food from Del Taco, led down the driveway to Mrs. Hernandezs body. A second knife was also discovered in the flower bed.

Defendant was subsequently charged with first degree murder by means of . . . lying in wait (Pen. Code, sect; 189)^[
3
] and the special circumstance of lying in wait (Pen. Code, sect; 190.2, subd. (a)(15)).^[
4
] It was also alleged that he personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon (Pen. Code, sect; 12022, subd. (b)(1)).^[
5
]

Defendant waived his right to a jury trial and agreed to a court trial, after which the parties submitted on the testimony and exhibits presented during the preliminary hearing. The trial court found defendant guilty as charged and sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Defendant timely appealed.

CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL

On appeal, defendant contends (1) that the lying-in-wait circumstance is unconstitutional because it does not perform the narrowing function required by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and (2) that there was insufficient evidence to support either his conviction of first degree murder or the special circumstance that he intentionally committed the murder by means of lying in wait.

DISCUSSION1. Constitutionality of the Lying-in-wait Special Circumstance

Defendant contends that the lying-in-wait special circumstance (Pen. Code, sect; 190.2, subd. (a)(15)) is unconstitutionally vague because it does not perform the narrowing function required by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Stated differently, defendant contends that the lying-in-wait special circumstance is so similar to lying-in-wait murder that it does not provide a principled distinction for determining which offenders are deserving of greater punishment. However, the narrowing requirement only applies to death penalty cases. (Romano v. Oklahoma (1994) 512 US 1, 6-7 [the Eighth Amendments concern that the death penalty only be imposed when appropriate requires states to satisfy the requirements of (1) principled narrowing of the eligible offenders and (2) individualized sentencing]; cf. Harmelin v. Michigan (1991) 501 US 957, 995-996 [heightened Eighth Amendment protection of individualized sentencing in capital cases does not apply to noncapital cases].) Therefore, we address defendants contention as modified in his reply brief, in which he contends that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendments proportionality principle because his sentence is disproportionate to that of other murderers who commit identical crimes but receive 25 years to life in prison. Under his modified theory, the crux of his argument remains that there is no principled distinction between lying-in-wait murder and the lying-in-wait special circumstance. The outcome is the same under either theory.

The California Supreme Court has consistently upheld the lying-in-wait special circumstance against Eighth Amendment challenges. Lying-in-wait murder and the lying-in-wait special circumstance are similar in that both require a concealment of purpose, a substantial period of watching and waiting for a favorable or opportune time to act, and . . . a surprise attack on an unsuspecting victim from a position of advantage. ^[
6
] (People v. Gurule (2002) 28 Cal.4th 557, 630; People v. Bonilla (2007) 41 Cal.4th 313, 330; People v. Poindexter (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 572, 577.) However, [t]he special circumstance requirement that the defendant intentionally kill the victim continues to distinguish the special circumstance from first degree murder under a lying-in-wait theory. Lying-in-wait first degree murder `requires only a wanton and reckless intent to inflict injury likely to cause death. (Citations.) (People v. Poindexter, supra, 144 Cal.App.4th at p. 580, fn. 10; People v. Stevens (2007) 41 Cal.4th 182, 204.)

Defendant contends that this distinction is unprincipled because lying-in-wait murder also requires an intent to kill, despite express California Supreme Court precedent to the contrary. To reach this conclusion, defendant highlights that the substantial waiting and watching period must demonstrate a state of mind equivalent to premeditation or deliberation. (People v. Stevens, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 202.) This analysis fails because [a]ll that is required of lying in wait is that the perpetrator exhibit a state of mind equivalent to, but not identical to, premeditation and deliberation. (Citation.) This state of mind simply is the intent to watch and wait for the purpose of gaining advantage and taking the victim unawares in order to facilitate the act which constitutes murder. (Citation.) It does not include the intent to kill or injure the victim. (People v. Laws (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 786, 795.) Therefore, the lying-in-wait special circumstance is constitutionally sound because it makes a class of murderers eligible for greater punishment in a principled manner. Defendants sentence is not arbitrarily longer than that of some other murderers, but rather is longer because he is more culpable than some others who commit lying-in-wait murder.

2. Sufficiency of the Evidence as to Defendants Conviction of First Degree Murder by Means of Lying in Wait and the Lying-in-Wait Special Circumstance

When considering an insufficiency of the evidence contention, we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. To be substantial, the evidence must be reasonable, credible, and of solid value. When circumstantial evidence is present, we must consider not just the evidence, but all logical inferences that arise from the evidence. We may not substitute our judgment for that of the trier of fact. If the circumstances reasonably justify the verdict, we may not reverse merely because the circumstances might also support a contrary determination. Instead, we may reverse only if it clearly appears that there is insufficient substantial evidence to support any hypothesis of guilt. (People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 11; People v. Poindexter, supra, 144 Cal.App.4th at p. 577.)

We review the special circumstance of lying in wait because it is subject to more stringent requirements than first degree murder by means of lying in wait. (People v. Gutierrez (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1083, 1149.) If substantial evidence supports the special circumstance finding, it necessarily supports the conviction of first degree murder by means of lying in wait. (Ibid.)

To establish the lying-in-wait special circumstance, the prosecution must prove there was a concealment of purpose, a substantial period of watching and waiting for a favorable or opportune time to act, and . . . a surprise attack on an unsuspecting victim from a position of advantage. (People v. Gurule, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 630; People v. Bonilla, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 330; People v. Poindexter, supra, 144 Cal.App.4th at pp. 577-581.) “The element of concealment is satisfied by a showing `that a defendants true intent and purpose were concealed by his actions or conduct. It is not required that he be literally concealed from view before he attacks the victim. (People v. Stevens, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 202.) The substantial waiting and watching period need only be minutes, providing it demonstrates a state of mind equivalent to premeditation or deliberation. (Id. at p. 202.) Watching and waiting includes alertly waiting for a victims arrival. (People v. Sims (1993) 5 Cal.4th 405, 433.) The factors of concealing murderous intent, and striking from a position of advantage and surprise, `are the hallmark of a murder by lying in wait. (Citation.) (People v. Stevens, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 202.)

With these governing principles in mind, the record before us demonstrates that a reasonable trier of fact could find all four elements satisfied under any reasonable theory of events. The facts indicate that defendant obtained two knives, possibly from the place he almost invariably refused to venture, the kitchen. The blood splatter on the wall immediately next to the front door and the lack of any evidence of a struggle in the interior of the house supports the inference that defendant attacked Mrs. Hernandez with at least one knife immediately after she opened the door. In addition, defendant almost always sat inside the house in a chair that was positioned behind the front door when it was opened. Therefore, the trier of fact could conclude that defendant concealed his purpose, both by being hidden behind the front door and by, as is likely given the consistency of his actions prior to the incident, following the same routine with the hidden intent of killing Mrs. Hernandez with a knife. The evidence also supports the inference that defendant was watching and waiting for Mrs. Hernandez to return home with the intention of stabbing her and then launched an immediate surprise attack when she opened the door. The time between his preparation for the attack, when he obtained the knives, and the actual attack is a sufficiently substantial period of watching and waiting, regardless of the actual length of time.

Further, when the evidence above is combined with the fact that Mrs. Hernandezs hands were likely occupied with carrying the various items that were found in the doorway and on the driveway, a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that defendant was in a position of advantage when the attack was launched. This was the point at which she was most defenseless and vulnerable. Finally, the trier of fact could conclude that defendant intended to kill Mrs. Hernandez because he attacked her with a deadly weapon, a knife, and stabbed her 86 times. While we recognize that contrary inferences might be drawn from the facts, it is the role of the trier of fact to decide which inferences should be drawn. Therefore, we hold that defendants conviction of both lying-in-wait murder and the lying-in-wait special circumstance are supported by substantial evidence.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

WE CONCUR:

KLEIN, P. J.

KITCHING, J.

article source

GAINESVILLE - Eight people have been arrested during burglary investigation in Hall County in which a large quantity of stolen items was recovered.

Sgt. Kiley Sargent of the Hall County Sheriffs Office says the break in the case came when a sheriffs deputy located a car believed use in one of the burglaries.

Investigators responded to the scene and took into custody three Hispanic males, Sgt. Sargent said. Victor David Zuniga, age 20, of Gainesville was charged with two counts of Burglary, Criminal Trespass and Loitering. Carlos Ruben Lopez, age 22, of Flowery Branch was charged with 2 counts of Burglary, Criminal Trespass and Loitering. Charges are pending on the third suspect.

Sargent added that after questioning the three, investigators were able to determine the location of a large amount of stolen property taken from several burglaries in the South Hall area.

At approximately 6:00 pm Tuesday, investigators executed a search warrant at a residence in the 3900 block of Wakefield Drive in Flowery Branch. Inside the residence, investigators located various items ranging from electronics to jewelry.

Sargent said investigators are currently sorting through the evidence and attempting to determine the victims.

During the search, he said, five more people were arrested on various charges:

*Steven D. Key, 21, Flowery Branch, arrested for an outstanding Superior Court Probation Warrant.

*Jacob Hortman, 21, Flowery Branch, charged with one count of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, possession of Oxycodone with intent to distribute, possession of diazepam, drugs out their original container and possession of firearm while in commission of a felony.

*Christopher Boddie, 27, Oakwood, charged with one count of criminal attempt to purchase Oxycodone.

*Taylor McCullough, 19, Flowery Branch, charged with one count of criminal attempt to purchase Oxycodone and an outstanding warrant for underage consumption of alcohol.

*Grant Wright, 23, Gainesville, charged with one count of criminal attempt to purchase Oxycodone.

Sargent said more arrests are expected.

article source