Court Opinion

ID: 9411543
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-26 23:03:33.232961+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:07.405659
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/26/23 P. v. Craig CA2/1
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                         SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                        DIVISION ONE

 THE PEOPLE,                                                   B323587

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                           (Los Angeles County
                                                                Super. Ct. No. BA497302)
           v.

 LAWRENCE DIMITRIOUS
 CRAIG,

           Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Drew E. Edwards, Judge. Affirmed in part and
reversed in part with directions.
      John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
      Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant
Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Michael J. Wise,
Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                     ______________________
      On July 22, 2021, in connection with a domestic violence
incident, defendant Lawrence Dimitrious Craig fired shots from a
handgun in the street near his girlfriend T.W.’s apartment before
she fled.1 Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers found
several nine-millimeter semiautomatic shell casings at the scene
but were unable to apprehend Craig. Less than 36 hours later,
on July 24, 2021, T.W. returned to her apartment and
encountered Craig outside. After T.W. locked herself inside the
apartment, Craig shot at her kitchen window from the street.
LAPD officers arrested Craig approximately one to two miles
from T.W.’s apartment. They recovered several nine-millimeter
semiautomatic shell casings outside of the apartment but did not
find the gun used in either shooting. A jury convicted Craig of,
among other things, two counts of possession of a firearm by a
felon (Pen. Code,2 § 29800, subd. (a)(1)): one count for the July 22,
2021 incident, and a separate count for the July 24, 2021
incident.
       Craig raises a single issue on appeal. He contends one of
his two convictions for possession of a firearm must be reversed
because the crime is a continuing offense, and there is no
substantial evidence that he committed two distinct felon-in-
possession offenses. We agree and reverse the judgment on
count 5, the earlier in time of the two felon-in-possession counts,

      1 To protect personal privacy interests, we refer to the
victim of Craig’s domestic violence and her mother by their
initials. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.90(b).)
      2 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless
otherwise specified.

                                 2
and remand the matter to the trial court so that it may determine
whether to resentence Craig.
                        BACKGROUND
A.     Factual Summary
       The prosecution’s evidence established the following facts
relevant to the issue presented by this appeal. Craig and T.W.
lived together in her apartment. On July 22, 2021, T.W.
telephoned her mother, N.B., and asked her to get Craig to leave
the apartment. When N.B. arrived, she observed T.W. seated in
a vehicle in the street in front of the apartment building. N.B.
went to the apartment and asked Craig to open the door. She
told him he should stay away for two or three days and then T.W.
and Craig could reconcile. Craig stated he did not want to go.
Either N.B. (who had keys to the apartment) or Craig opened the
door. N.B. told Craig that she would telephone the police if he
did not leave. N.B. called 911 at 3:50 p.m.
       Craig left the apartment, and N.B. followed him, reporting
his location to the 911 operator. During a second 911 call, N.B.
stated that Craig “was shooting a gun up in the street.” N.B. and
T.W. left the scene.
       Two nearby residents heard gunshots around 4:00 p.m.
One of the residents telephoned 911 at 4:02 p.m. to report that he
heard five gunshots. The other, who lived next door to the first,
provided residential surveillance camera video to police that
showed Craig discharging a firearm. During closing argument,
the prosecutor described the surveillance video as showing Craig
pulling a gun out of a brown backpack or messenger bag that
Craig wore over one shoulder.
       LAPD officers arrived at the scene at 4:09 p.m. They
canvassed the area but did not locate Craig or a gun. The officers

                                3
found five bullet casings from a nine-millimeter semiautomatic
firearm in the vicinity of where the person shooting the gun
appeared on the residential video footage.
       On July 24, 2021, T.W. returned to her apartment and
encountered Craig outside. At 1:26 a.m., T.W. telephoned 911
and reported gunshots outside of her home. She stated, “Uh,
Lawrence—I believe it’s Lawrence Craig. He just, basically, he
ran up on me, he could’ve killed me, but he didn’t. So, I got—I
had enough time to come inside my house. So, I–I’m inside my
house and I locked the doors and everything and then he just
started shooting right now. He shot five times, like, right now
outside of [her address].” During the call, T.W. describes that
Craig is carrying “a brown backpack, but it’s not a backpack, it’s
something like goes over one shoulder, like is a man’s bag.”
       LAPD officers responded to the scene and searched the
area. Officer Anthony Lozano saw someone matching T.W.’s
description of Craig walking about one to two miles from T.W.’s
home. The individual was in fact Craig; his shirt was wet with
sweat, as if he had been running. The officers did not find a gun
or bag on Craig or in the area. Police officers drove T.W. to an
intersection where they had detained Craig, and she identified
him as the shooter.
       Investigating officers found four bullet holes around T.W.’s
kitchen window facing the street and that a fifth bullet had
shattered her kitchen window and created a hole in her kitchen
ceiling. Police officers recovered five nine-millimeter
semiautomatic shell casings on the westbound side of T.W.’s
street, just south of her apartment building. Police officers
swabbed Craig’s hands for gunshot residue. One sample tested
positive, indicating Craig either discharged a firearm, was near

                                 4
someone who discharged a firearm, or came into contact with a
surface contaminated with gunshot residue.
       At trial, LAPD Detective Nicholas Gallego testified that the
recovered casings were all nine-millimeter and semiautomatic,
but that this did not establish one way or the other whether the
10 casings came from the same gun. He testified it was possible
all the casings came from the same gun, and that it was possible
they all came from different guns. Of the five casings found at
the scene on July 22, 2021, two were F.C. Lugar brand
ammunition, two were “G.F.L.,” and the one remaining casing
was unidentified. Three of the five casings from the July 24,
2021, incident were Hornady brand ammunition; the other two
were unidentified. Although the brands of ammunition were
different between the July 22 and July 24, 2021 incidents,
Detective Gallego testified that did not mean the casings came
from different guns. He elaborated, “You can put any nine[-
]millimeter brand of ammunition into a nine[-]millimeter
handgun, and they will shoot the same. The brand in and of
itself has no bearing if they are the same kind of round.”3

      3 Craig notes that during closing arguments, the
prosecution argued, “all of this evidence together, and it is
consistent with the nine millimeters because they are all the
same. They are consistent with being fired in the same gun, a
nine[-]millimeter semiautomatic.” Craig suggests this was a
prosecutorial concession that he possessed only one gun; based on
the context of this argument, however, this statement referred
only to the casings from the July 22, 2021 shooting. In any event,
the arguments of counsel are not evidence and are of limited
value in evaluating whether Craig’s possession of a firearm was
continuous.

                                 5
B.     Procedural Summary
       A second amended information charged Craig with
attempted, willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted
murder (§§ 187, 664; count 1), two counts of shooting at an
inhabited dwelling (§ 246; counts 2, 4), two counts of possession of
a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); counts 3, 5), and
discharging a firearm with gross negligence (§ 246.3, subd. (a);
count 8).4 Counts 1 through 3 related to the events of July 24,
2021; counts 4, 5, and 8 related to the events of July 22, 2021.
The information further alleged that Craig had been convicted of
two violent or serious felonies within the meaning of section 667,
subdivision (d), and section 1170.12, subdivision (b), and factors
in aggravation of the sentence. The trial court dismissed counts
1 and 4 before they reached the jury.5
       A jury convicted Craig of shooting at an inhabited dwelling
(count 2), two counts of possession of a firearm by a felon (counts
3, 5), and discharging a firearm with gross negligence (count 8).
Craig thereafter admitted two prior violent or serious felonies
within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (d), and section
1170.12, subdivision (b).
       The trial court held a sentencing hearing on August 25,
2022. It found true two factors in aggravation of the sentence

      4 The second amended information did not include counts 6
or 7 as the trial court found the evidence at the preliminary
hearing insufficient to support those counts.
      5 The counts were renumbered for purposes of the verdict
forms, only. We refer to the counts as they were identified in the
second amended information.

                                 6
and, pursuant to Craig’s Romero6 motion, dismissed one of two
strike allegations due to the age of the conviction. The trial court
sentenced Craig to a total of 18 years in state prison, imposing a
sentence of seven years doubled to 14 years pursuant to his prior
strike conviction for count 2, and eight months doubled to 16
months, consecutive, for each of counts 3, 5, and 8.7
     Craig filed a timely notice of appeal.
                           DISCUSSION
        Our Supreme Court has recognized that possession of a
firearm by a felon is a continuing offense. (See People v. Mason
(2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 355, 365, citing Wright v. Superior Court
(1997) 15 Cal.4th 521, 525, fn. 1.) Prohibited individuals have an
affirmative obligation to comply with statutorily imposed duties
forbidding possession of firearms. (Mason, supra, at p. 366.)
“ ‘[A] continuing offense is marked by a continuing duty in the
defendant to do an act which he fails to do. The offense continues
as long as the duty persists, and there is a failure to perform that
duty.’ [Citations.] Thus, when the law imposes an affirmative
obligation to act, the violation is complete at the first instance the
elements are met. It is nevertheless not completed as long as the
obligation remains unfulfilled. ‘The crime achieves no finality
until such time.’ [Citations.]” (Wright, supra, at pp. 525-526.)
“ ‘In the case of continuing offenses, only one violation occurs
even though the proscribed conduct may extend over [an]

      6 People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497
permits a sentencing court to dismiss a prior strike conviction in
the furtherance of justice under section 1385.
      7 For counts 3, 5, and 8, the trial court selected one-third of
the middle term of 24 months.

                                  7
indefinite period.’ [Citations.]” (Mason, supra, at p. 365.) Thus,
in Mason, the Court of Appeal reversed all but one count for
possession of a firearm because the prosecution did not present
evidence that the defendant relinquished possession of the
firearm or that his possession was interrupted during the over
20-month period between the charged crimes. (Id. at pp. 361,
366-367.)
       In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a
criminal conviction, we “must review the whole record in the light
most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it
discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is
reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable
trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt.” (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578.)
“Speculation, however, is not enough.” (People v. Waidla (2000)
22 Cal.4th 690, 738.)
       Here, the record fails to disclose reasonable evidence of
solid value upon which the trier of fact could find beyond a
reasonable doubt that Craig possessed two different firearms, or
relinquished possession of a single firearm between the shooting
on July 22, 2021, and the shooting on July 24, 2021. To support
its argument that Craig committed two separate offenses, the
Attorney General points to Detective Gallego’s testimony that
different brands of ammunition were used for each shooting, and
Gallego’s speculation that the casings could have come from
different guns. Further, the Attorney General argues that
because Craig disposed of whatever gun he used on July 24, 2021,
before he was arrested, he “likely” also disposed of the gun he
used on July 22, 2021.

                                8
       Putting aside speculation, as we must, the evidence showed
only that the weapon used on July 22 as well as on July 24 was a
nine-millimeter semiautomatic handgun, and that Craig had no
weapon on him when he was arrested on July 24. That’s it.
Without more, this evidence falls short of the necessary
substantial evidence to show Craig committed two distinct crimes
of being a felon-in-possession of a firearm. While the brand of
ammunition used on the two occasions was not consistent, any
inference from that fact is entirely speculative. Detective Gallego
testified the difference in ammunition was not informative as to
whether Craig used the same or different firearms on the two
dates in question.
       Nor does the fact that Craig had no weapon on him when
police arrested him on July 24 fairly support that he committed a
distinct felon-in-possession offense on July 22. Investigators
found neither the handgun nor the brown bag Craig carried (from
within which he drew the handgun on July 22) when they
arrested him on July 24. Yet, on July 24, Craig still had the
brown bag with him when he was shooting at T.W.’s apartment.
Thus, contrary to the Attorney General’s suggestion, it is not
reasonable to infer that Craig disposed of the gun he used on
July 22 simply because he did so on July 24. Shorn of
speculation, the evidence appears to indicate Craig kept
possession of the same firearm that he had with him on July 22,
and disposed of the bag and the gun only on July 24, 2021.
       “ ‘[W]hen the law imposes an affirmative obligation to act,
the violation is complete at the first instance the elements are
met. It is nevertheless not completed as long as the obligation
remains unfulfilled. “The crime achieves no finality until such
time.” ’ [Citation.]” (People v. Mason, supra, 232 Cal.App.4th at

                                 9
p. 365.) Here, Craig’s violation of section 29800, subdivision
(a)(1) was complete as of July 22, 2021, but not completed until
July 24, 2021. Accordingly, we will reverse the earlier in time of
his two felon-in-possession convictions given the continuing
nature of the offense.
                          DISPOSITION
       The judgment of conviction on count 5, the July 22, 2021
conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon, along with the
16-month sentence imposed on count 5, are reversed. The matter
is remanded to the trial court with directions to resentence Craig
if the court wishes to exercise its sentencing discretion in light of
the reduced sentence. The court is to prepare an amended
abstract of judgment and forward a copy to the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other respects, the
judgment is affirmed.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                                            WEINGART, J.

We concur:

             CHANEY, J.

             BENDIX, Acting P. J.

                                 10