People v. Melchor CA2/4

Filed 7/8/25 P. v. Melchor CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B335977

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SA108439) v.

JUAN LOPEZ MELCHOR,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Christopher W. Dybwad, Judge. Affirmed. Steven S. Lubliner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Lauren Sanchez, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A jury convicted defendant Juan Lopez Melchor of assault with a deadly weapon, a machete (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)),1 and vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a)). On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on brandishing as a lesser related offense of assault with a deadly weapon. We affirm the judgment.

DISCUSSION2 Defendant argues that the trial court was required to instruct the jury on brandishing a weapon as a lesser related offense to assault with a deadly weapon.3 While defendant recognizes binding authority that prevents a trial court from instructing on a lesser related offense where, as here, the prosecutor did not agree to the instruction, he argues that the manner in which the prosecutor argued the evidence somehow implicitly waived the prosecutor’s consent. As recognized by the trial court, defendant was not entitled to an instruction on brandishing as a lesser related offense of assault with a deadly weapon. Defendant’s attempt to circumvent clearly established precedent by claiming the evidence supports a brandishing instruction has no merit.