People v. Islas
210 Cal. App. 4th 116
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Islas and Giron were convicted by a jury of burglary of Salado’s apartment with a person present and five counts of false imprisonment by violence or menace; all counts were tied to a gang-styled crime in downtown Los Angeles.
- Evidence showed Islas and Giron entered Salado’s bathroom via a ventilation shaft and remained in a small apartment with Salado and her four daughters for about 15 minutes, during which Salado and the children feared harm.
- The jury found the false imprisonment to be aided by a criminal street gang, and the court sentenced them to prison terms with concurrent counts for false imprisonment.
- The defense argued the false imprisonment counts were only misdemeanors due to lack of violence or menace, which would affect the burglary conviction.
- The appellate court affirmed the felony false imprisonment convictions and burglary, but stayed the terms imposed on counts 2 through 6 in accordance with section 654.
- The record showed Salado and her daughters perceived a threat based on the intruders’ gang tattoos, intimidation, and conduct, creating a climate of fear in a gang stronghold apartment building.
- Judgment modified to stay the terms on counts 2 through 6; affirmed as so modified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence supports felony false imprisonment by menace | Islas/Giron contend no menace proven | Islas/Giron argue no express/implied threat | Yes; substantial evidence of menace supported felony false imprisonment |
| Whether burglary underlying the false imprisonment conviction stands | Burglary based on entry with intent to commit false imprisonment | No separate burglary objective; only one underlying felony | Burglary sentence should be tied to the underlying felony and the false imprisonment term stayed |
| Whether the five false imprisonment counts should be stayed under §654 | Requests staying of all five counts | Implied separate objectives could support multiple punishments | Yes; stay counts 2–6; only the longest term remains for the concurrent acts |
| Role of fear evidence in proving menace | Victims’ fear supports menace | Fear not relevant to menace | Fear testimony properly considered in assessing threat of harm |
| Whether the multiple-victim exception to §654 applies | Exception may apply | Not applicable; burglary not violence against multiple victims | Not applicable; exception does not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Wardell, 162 Cal.App.4th 1484 (2008) (menace may be proven without weapon or express threat)
- People v. Haney, 75 Cal.App.3d 308 (1977) (menace may be established by words or acts; fear relevant to menace)
- People v. Matian, 35 Cal.App.4th 480 (1995) (discusses menace; evidence may be inadequate without threat/weapon)
- People v. Castro, 138 Cal.App.4th 137 (2004) (critiques Matian; menace shown by conduct/threats may not require weapon)
- People v. Aispuro, 157 Cal.App.4th 1509 (2007) (threat of harm can be shown by conduct; not limited to verbal threats)
- People v. Reed, 78 Cal.App.4th 274 (2000) (illustrates threats without weapon in false imprisonment context)
- People v. Le, 136 Cal.App.4th 925 (2006) (multiple victim exception to §654 case law)