People v. Rodriguez CA5

California Court of Appeal Oct 17, 2013 No. F064383Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that while it was constitutional error to admit evidence of the defendant's refusal to exit his room without a warrant, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the overwhelming evidence of guilt. The court further held that the flight instruction was properly given or, alternatively, any error in its inclusion was harmless.

Issues

Whether the admission of the defendant's refusal to exit his room without a warrant violated his constitutional rights.
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the admission of the defendant's statement.
Whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury on flight.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We find any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and affirm the judgment.”

“Given the strength of the prosecution’s case, we find that any error in referring to appellant’s assertion of the need for a warrant to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under the Chapman standard of review.”

Filed 10/17/13 P. v. Rodriguez CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, F064383

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F11905911)

v. OPINION LARRY FRANK RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. John F. Vogt, Judge. Francine R. Tone, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Carlos A. Martinez, Marcia A. Fay, and Kari Ricci Mueller, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

* Before Kane, Acting P.J., Detjen, J., and Franson, J.

INTRODUCTION Appellant, Larry Frank Rodriguez, contends his conviction must be reversed because the trial court permitted the prosecutor to commit constitutional error, trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the error, and the trial court erroneously gave the flight instruction. We find any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and affirm the judgment. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS On January 10, 2012, the prosecutor filed a first amended information alleging that appellant committed assault by means likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)).1 It was further alleged that appellant inflicted great bodily injury on the victim (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). The jury convicted appellant of assault by means likely to cause great bodily injury but did not find the great bodily injury enhancement to be true. The court sentenced appellant to the midterm of three years. Appellant was awarded custody credits of 126 days and conduct credits of 126 days for total credits of 252 days. Michael Cline testified at trial that on October 12, 2011, he was living over a department store in downtown Fresno. Cline was working on a computer in the common kitchen area with his friend, Dan Briam. Cline was on the phone with Michael, a computer repairman assisting Cline with the computer repair. There were a number of people in the hall making noise, so Cline shut the kitchen door to better hear Michael. A few seconds later, appellant slammed the door open and said, “How dare you shut this door.” Cline told appellant that he closed the kitchen door because he was on an important phone call and there was too much noise. Cline explained that anyone was

People v. Rodriguez CA5

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, F064383

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief