People v. Sinigur CA3
C091622A
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 19, 2024Background
- Vladimir Sinigur was convicted of 18 sex offenses against his three young children (16 against his daughter, 2 against his sons), including sexual intercourse, oral copulation, sexual penetration, and lewd or lascivious acts.
- The offenses came to light when Sinigur's wife learned of the abuse and reported it to authorities; the defendant admitted to some of the acts during police interviews.
- The jury found Sinigur committed offenses against more than one victim, triggering California's "one strike" sentencing law.
- He was sentenced to an aggregate indeterminate term of 250 years to life in prison.
- The initial appellate decision affirmed the convictions but ordered resentencing; following remand from the California Supreme Court (in light of In re Vaquera), the appellate court reconsidered whether Sinigur had proper notice of the prosecution’s intent to seek multiple one strike enhancements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Evidence (lewd acts with sons) | Jury properly found evidence sufficient based on interviews/confession | Evidence insufficient; claimed only tickling, not sexual intent | Evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions |
| Multiple Convictions on Same Acts (§ 954) | Statutes allow multiple convictions for each offense | Convictions for lewd acts duplicate other sex crime convictions | Multiple convictions permissible |
| Ineffective Assistance/Miranda Waiver | Waiver was knowing and intelligent; interview was proper | Psychiatric condition rendered waiver invalid; confession involuntary | Waiver was valid; no error |
| One Strike Sentencing Allegations | Defendant received notice; enhancements should apply to each count | Prosecution failed to properly allege multiple enhancements for each count | Pleading was defective but error harmless |
| Jury Instruction Error (Unanimity) | Instructions were sufficient; no prejudice | Omitted language misled jury | No miscarriage of justice; issue forfeited |
| Trial Court Sentencing Discretion | No error; sentences valid as imposed | Court failed to recognize discretion for concurrent sentences | Remand for resentencing required |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Banks, 61 Cal.4th 788 (Cal. 2015) (standard for sufficiency of evidence in criminal appeals)
- People v. Gonzalez, 60 Cal.4th 533 (Cal. 2014) (multiple convictions for same act permissible unless necessarily included offenses)
- People v. Anderson, 9 Cal.5th 946 (Cal. 2020) (pleading and notice requirements for sentence enhancements)
- People v. Houston, 54 Cal.4th 1186 (Cal. 2012) (actual notice may cure pleading defects for sentencing)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (requirements for valid waiver of rights in custodial interrogation)