People v. Lara CA5
F079648A
| Cal. Ct. App. | Mar 4, 2022Background:
- Charged with attempted murder, burglary, robbery, and assault with a firearm; multiple firearm and great-bodily-injury enhancements were alleged.
- Lara and an accomplice returned to the victim’s residence with a shotgun; Lara kneeled on the victim, threatened him ('shut the fuck up; better not say shit') and shot him in the stomach.
- After being wounded the victim reached for his phone but it was missing; cell‑tower records later showed the phone connected near Lara’s home shortly after the shooting.
- The victim identified Lara as the shooter/robber; Lara was convicted on all counts and sentenced to 32 years to life; the court imposed various fines and fees.
- On appeal Lara challenged (1) sufficiency of the robbery evidence, (2) the court’s failure to instruct theft as a lesser included offense, (3) trial counsel’s effectiveness regarding robbery instructions, and (4) imposition of fines/fees without an ability‑to‑pay hearing.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of robbery evidence | People: Victim ID, the warning and shooting, the missing phone, and cell‑tower data support robbery and contemporaneous intent to steal | Lara: No substantial evidence he intended to steal before/during the shooting or that he was the robber | Affirmed — viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, substantial evidence supported identity and contemporaneous intent for robbery |
| Failure to instruct theft as lesser included | People: No adequate theory of theft‑only; robbery instructions were sufficient | Lara: Evidence supported an after‑formed‑intent theory (intent to steal formed after shooting), so theft is a lesser included offense and instruction should have been given | Court erred in not instructing on theft, but error was harmless because defense focused on misidentification and jury faced an all‑or‑nothing choice |
| Ineffective assistance for not requesting pinpoint instruction on contemporaneous intent | People: Trial counsel reasonably pursued a misidentification strategy; CALCRIM instructions adequately explained contemporaneous‑intent requirement | Lara: Counsel was deficient for not requesting a specific instruction clarifying that intent must form before/during the force | Denied — counsel’s strategy was objectively reasonable, inconsistent defenses would undercut credibility, and no prejudice shown; instructions covered the point |
| Fines/fees imposed without ability‑to‑pay hearing | People: Lara forfeited the claim by not objecting; record indicates he had ability to pay | Lara: Due process required an ability‑to‑pay hearing before imposing fines/fees; record does not show ability to pay | Forfeited — claim forfeited by failure to object; alternatively harmless because probation report showed substantial prior income and assets and court presumed to consider ability to pay |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lindberg, 45 Cal.4th 1 (establishes standard for sufficiency review)
- People v. Kipp, 26 Cal.4th 1100 (intent to steal must form before or during the use of force for robbery)
- People v. Licas, 41 Cal.4th 362 (trial court must instruct on lesser included offenses when evidence warrants)
- People v. Friend, 47 Cal.4th 1 (theft is a lesser included offense of robbery; discusses all‑or‑nothing jury choice)
- People v. Gonzalez, 5 Cal.5th 186 (harmless‑error standard for failure to instruct on lesser included offenses)
- People v. Dueñas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (discusses requirement to consider ability to pay before imposing certain fines and fees)
- People v. Bell, 7 Cal.5th 70 (sets out ineffective assistance of counsel standards)