People v. Espinoza CA2/5
B266084
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 22, 2016Background
- Defendant Javier Frank Espinoza was convicted by jury of resisting an executive officer (Pen. Code § 69) and admitted two prior serious felony convictions for sentence enhancement purposes.
- At the scene of a domestic disturbance, officers testified Espinoza shouted obscenities, assumed a fighting stance, challenged officers, tried to strike them, violently pulled away, crossed his arms under his prone body and attempted to get up while being handcuffed; multiple officers were required to subdue him.
- Trial court denied defendant’s motion to strike his prior serious-felony convictions and sentenced him to six years in state prison.
- Appellate counsel filed a Wende brief requesting independent review; defendant filed a supplemental brief arguing insufficient evidence of resisting and challenging denial of Romero/Carmony relief.
- Appellate counsel also requested correction of presentence conduct credit; the record and statutes applicable to crimes committed on or after Oct. 1, 2011, required adjustment.
- The court identified errors in the abstract of judgment for restitution fines and ordered corrections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence of resisting an officer (Pen. Code § 69) | Prosecution: testimony showed force/violence in resisting arrest, supporting conviction | Espinoza: argued evidence insufficient to prove resisting by force or violence | Conviction affirmed; officers’ testimony showed substantial evidence of resisting by force/violence |
| Denial of motion to strike prior serious-felony priors (Romero/Carmony) | Prosecution: prior convictions and violent instant offense justified denial; discretionary sentencing decision | Espinoza: asked court to strike priors to avoid increased sentence | Denial not an abuse of discretion given violent conduct and lengthy criminal history |
| Presentence conduct credit calculation (Pen. Code § 4019) | People: trial court mistakenly awarded 326 days custody + 65 days conduct credit | Espinoza: requested correction to reflect 326 days of conduct credit under post-2011 § 4019 rules | Modified: judgment corrected to show 326 days of presentence conduct credit |
| Abstract of judgment restitution fines | People: trial court intended $1,800 restitution fine and $1,800 postrelease restitution fine | Espinoza: noted abstract showed $300 each instead of $1,800 | Abstract to be amended to reflect $1,800 restitution fine and $1,800 postrelease revocation restitution fine |
Key Cases Cited
- Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (procedure for independent appellate review when counsel files no arguable issues)
- In re Manuel G., 16 Cal.4th 805 (two ways to violate § 69: deterring an officer or resisting with force)
- People v. Smith, 57 Cal.4th 232 (discussion of § 69 and standards for resistance by force)
- People v. Carmony, 33 Cal.4th 367 (standards for appellate review of Romero/Carmony sentencing discretion)
- People v. Solis, 232 Cal.App.4th 1108 (application of sentencing discretion regarding priors)
- People v. Vargas, 59 Cal.4th 635 (contrast on sentencing discretion and prior-striking analysis)
- People v. Verba, 210 Cal.App.4th 991 (application of post-2011 § 4019 conduct credit rules)
- People v. Brown, 54 Cal.4th 314 (interpretation of presentence conduct credits)
- People v. Butler, 243 Cal.App.4th 1346 (correction of abstract to reflect imposed restitution fines)
- People v. Preston, 239 Cal.App.4th 415 (requiring abstract to match trial court’s restitution orders)