Can a court joinder a carjacking, kidnapping for robbery for the same crime?

Here, the carjacking, kidnapping for robbery, and robbery offenses are of the same class of assaultive crimes and may be joined under section 954. (See People v. Walker (1988) 47 Cal.3d 605, 622.) However, even when the statutory requirements for joinder have been met, "the court 'in the interests of justice and for good cause shown, may in its discretion order that the different offenses or counts set forth in the accusatory pleading be tried separately . . . .' ( 954.)" (People v. Thomas, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 798.)

"'In determining whether a trial court abused its discretion under section 954 in declining to sever properly joined charges, "we consider the record before the trial court when it made its ruling."' [Citations.] We consider first whether the evidence of the two sets of offenses would have been cross-admissible if the offenses had been separately tried. [Citation.] If the evidence would have been cross-admissible, then joinder of the charges was not prejudicial." (People v. Thomas, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 798.)

Medina has failed to make a "'clear showing of prejudice.' [Citation.]" (People v. Thomas, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 798.) On the date of the incident for which Medina was charged, defendants were discovered with a .32-caliber gun. A backpack within arm's

Page 8