From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ferrell

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fifth Division
Nov 19, 2009
No. B206803 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 19, 2009)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VICTORIA JEAN FERRELL, et al., Defendants and Appellants. B206803 California Court of Appeal, Second District, Fifth Division November 19, 2009

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA075842

ORDERS MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING PETITION

MOSK, J.

The opinion filed October 28, 2009, is modified to correct several clerical errors.

1. On pages 10-11 of the typed opinion, third paragraph, beginning with line 7, delete: “Ms. Whitmus testified: “[Ms. Hill] approached, advanced towards [Ms. Ferrell], waving her arms, telling [Ms. Ferrell] to get out of her fucking house. That’s when [Ms. Plummer] defended herself.” Ms. Hill then pushed Ms. Ferrell. Ms. Whitmus, who was dumbfounded, confused, shocked, insulted, surprised, overwhelmed, bewildered, hurt and concerned about what was happening, denied ever striking Ms. Hill. Ms. Whitmus believed the fight was unnecessary as both Mr. Ferrell and Ms. Hill were hitting each other and bleeding. Ms. Whitmus admitted she did not notify the police of the fight in Ms. Hill’s apartment despite the fact that Ms. Ferrell was injured during the fracas.”

Replace the deleted portion with “Ms. Whitmus testified: “[Ms. Hill] approached, advanced towards [Ms. Plummer], waving her arms, telling [Ms. Plummer] to get out of her fucking house. That’s when [Ms. Plummer] defended herself.” Ms. Hill then pushed Ms. Plummer. Ms. Whitmus, who was dumbfounded, confused, shocked, insulted, surprised, overwhelmed, bewildered, hurt and concerned about what was happening, denied ever striking Ms. Hill. Ms. Whitmus believed the fight was unnecessary as both Ms. Plummer and Ms. Hill were hitting each other and bleeding. Ms. Whitmus admitted she did not notify the police of the fight in Ms. Hill’s apartment despite the fact that Ms. Plummer was injured during the fracas.”

2. On page 23 of the typed opinion, first paragraph, line 9, delete: “Ms. Ferrell argues that the failure to mention that she was charged in count 6 is tantamount to a failure to instruct on the elements of witness dissuasion.”

Replace the deleted portion with: “Ms. Whitmus argues that the failure to mention that she was charged in count 6 is tantamount to a failure to instruct on the elements of witness dissuasion.”

3. On page 24 at the end of the first full paragraph, insert the following, “Nor is there any merit to Ms. Ferrell’s related argument that her abstract of judgment must be modified to delete the reference to the fact the jury found she committed assault with a deadly weapon as to count 4. The jury found her guilty of assault with a deadly weapon in violation of section 245, subdivision (a)(1), a conclusion supported by substantial evidence. Thus, we cannot change the abstract of judgment.”

The rehearing petition filed November 12, 2009 is denied.

TURNER, P. J., ARMSTRONG, J.

I would grant the rehearing petition.


Summaries of

People v. Ferrell

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fifth Division
Nov 19, 2009
No. B206803 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 19, 2009)
Case details for

People v. Ferrell

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VICTORIA JEAN FERRELL, et al.…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fifth Division

Date published: Nov 19, 2009

Citations

No. B206803 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 19, 2009)