People v. Orozco CA4/2

California Court of Appeal Jul 3, 2025 No. E083679Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's shoplifting conviction, holding that the prosecution for the lesser included offense was timely commenced because the defendant was arraigned on the felony complaint within one year of the offense.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury on shoplifting as a lesser included offense.
Whether the shoplifting conviction was barred by the statute of limitations.
Whether defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by withdrawing an objection to the lesser included offense instruction.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Because prosecution commenced within a year, the shoplifting conviction was not barred by the statute of limitations.”

“We have also independently reviewed the record for potential error as required by People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to Orozco.”

Filed 7/3/25 P. v. Orozco CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, E083679 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. SWF2200167) v. OPINION GEORGE LENO OROZCO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Irma Poole Asberry,

Judge. Affirmed.

Larenda R. Delaini, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2024 a jury convicted George Leno Orozco of shoplifting as a lesser alternative

to the charged offense, robbery. He appealed his judgment. His attorney has filed a brief

under the authority of People v. Wende and Anders v. California1 informing this court

they were unable to identify any errors and asking us to perform an independent review

of the record. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

On September 22, 2021, a supervisor at Home Depot saw Orozco walk out of the

store without paying for a table saw. The supervisor testified that he confronted Orozco

and asked him for a receipt, and Orozco refused to provide one. According to the

People v. Orozco CA4/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

RAMIREZ P. J.

AI Brief