Opinion
Page 1348g
129 Cal.App.4th 1348g __ Cal.Rptr.3d__ THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KASEEN JACKSON et al., Defendants and Appellants. B125364 California Court of Appeal, Second District, Seventh Division June 7, 2005Los Angeles County, Super. Ct. No. BA158256.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING AND MODIFYING OPINION
WOODS, Acting P. J. ZELON, J.
IT IS ORDERED appellant Jackson’s petition for rehearing is denied and the opinion filed herein on May 9, 2005 (129 Cal.App.4th 129; 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 136), is modified as follows:
1. Throughout the opinion the name Milsap is changed to Millsap.
2. At page 11 [129 Cal.App.4th 143, advance report], footnote 7 new text is inserted at the end of the paragraph to read:
Some amendments were made to the wiretap statutes following the intercepts in this case. (Stats. 2002, ch. 605, § 13.) These amendments, however, do not affect the reasoning in this opinion or the judgment. For ease of reference we will refer to the wiretap statutes as they exist today.
3. At page 39 [129 Cal.App.4th 165, advance report], the text of footnote 114 is stricken and replaced with new text to read:
See People v. Yeoman (2003) 31 Cal.4th 93, 114 [2 Cal.Rptr.3d 186] [appellate court need not examine merits of defendant’s claims of error if defendant cannot show prejudice]. Furthermore, it is a long established rule that an appellate court need not “set forth and dispose of, seriatim, each and every item which appellant’s counsel chooses to characterize as an ‘issue’ in the case.” (People v. Ramos (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 278, 290 [173 Cal.Rptr. 64].) An opinion is not “a brief in reply to the counsel against whose views we decide;” it is a “statement of conclusions, and of the principal reasons which have led us to them.” (Holmes v. Rogers (1859) 13 Cal. 191, 202, quoted in Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1262 [82 Cal.Rptr.2d 85].)
These modifications do not constitute a change in the judgment.