People v. Velasquez-Mosqueda CA3, C075426

In July 2012 a 14-year-old victim was assaulted at a party and later forced into a van, where defendant participated in repeated physical assaults and attempted sexual contact; the group threatened to prostitute her.
Defendant (age 19) was convicted by jury of kidnapping (Pen. Code § 207(a)) and assault on a minor with force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245(a)(4)); jury acquitted or deadlocked on other related charges.
Probation recommended an 8-year upper term for kidnapping plus a consecutive 1-year term (total 9 years); defense sought probation or low terms.
Trial court imposed a 5-year midterm for kidnapping and a consecutive 1-year (one-third midterm) for assault (aggregate 6 years), explaining mitigation balanced aggravation but noting jail misconduct as evidence defendant was a danger to society.
On appeal defendant argued (1) the midterm selection for kidnapping was an abuse of discretion and (2) if objection was required to preserve that claim, defense counsel was ineffective for not objecting.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by selecting midterm (5 yrs) for kidnapping	Trial: sentencing was within discretion given aggravating facts and balancing mitigation	Defendant: midterm was improper and factors did not justify it	Forfeited on appeal (no specific trial objection); in any event court found sentencing within discretion
Whether failure to object at sentencing = ineffective assistance of counsel	Trial: counsel’s omission was reasonable tactical choice; no prejudice shown	Defendant: counsel was deficient for not objecting, warranting reversal	Claim fails: record shows reasonable tactical grounds and no reasonable probability of a different outcome

People v. Gonzalez, 31 Cal.4th 745 (discusses forfeiture of sentencing claims not raised below)
People v. McCullough, 56 Cal.4th 589 (same principle on sentencing forfeiture)
People v. De Soto, 54 Cal.App.4th 1 (objections must be specific to preserve sentencing claims)
People v. Mai, 57 Cal.4th 986 (standards for ineffective assistance on appeal)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes deficient performance and prejudice test)
People v. Black, 41 Cal.4th 799 (a single valid aggravating factor can justify upper term)
People v. Towne, 44 Cal.4th 63 (court may consider evidence underlying acquitted charges in sentencing)
People v. Haynes, 160 Cal.App.3d 1122 (on limits of dual-use prohibition when middle term imposed)