People v. Prado

California Court of Appeal Apr 14, 1982 No. Crim. 21606Published

Before: Christian

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's identification and conviction, and that the trial court's failure to advise the defendant of his rights before admitting prior convictions was harmless error.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying a motion for acquittal based on insufficient identification evidence.
Whether the trial court properly imposed a two-year enhancement for prior prison terms.
Whether the failure to advise the defendant of his rights when admitting prior convictions requires reversal.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Hansen’s failure to make a positive identification of appellant based on photographic displays merely goes to the weight of the evidence, not its sufficiency.”

“[T]o entitle a reviewing court to set aside a jury’s finding of guilt the evidence of identity must be so weak as to constitute practically no evidence at all.”

Opinion

CHRISTIAN, J.

Steven Vela Prado appeals from a judgment of imprisonment after a jury found him guilty of the following felonies:

[672]

Count I robbery of Ahmad Ahmad and the Mayfair Market Pen. Code, § 211

Count II assaulting Robert Hansen with a deadly weapon, and by means of force likely to produce serious bodily injury Pen. Code, § 245

Count III burglary of the Mayfair Market Pen. Code, § 459

Count XIII robbery of Teresa Sibaja, Kikue Palacio, and J & E Liquors Pen. Code, § 211

Count XV assault with a deadly weapon upon Sibaja and Palacio Pen. Code, § 245

Count XVI burglary of J&E Liquors Pen. Code, § 459.

Appellant does not challenge counts XIII, XV and XVI; accordingly there is no need to discuss those offenses.

On November 16, 1979, Ahmad Ahmad (counts I and III) was, along with various relatives, working at the Mayfair Market in Salinas. Three men, one armed with a shotgun, entered the store. The man with the shotgun said “Holdup,” and directed Ahmad and his family to lie on the floor. The gunman ordered Ahmad’s father to open the register and took “everything” from the register, including 100 $1 bills, coins, and money orders. At trial, Ahmad identified money orders which had been taken from his store. Each of the three men carried a paper bag when they left the store.

At about 5 p.m. the same day, Robert Hansen (count ÍI) entered the Mayfair Market and saw appellant with a gun in his hand; appellant pointed the gun at Hansen’s head and made Hansen lie on the floor. Hansen saw appellant walk back and forth, and then go around the corner. Hansen remained on the floor until someone told him it was all right to get up.

The next day, a San Jose police officer responded to a call concerning an assault and battery upon a woman at 1805 Cortez, San Jose. The officer spoke with Cecilia Prado, the woman who had called the police. The officer, accompanied by two others, went to her home. When there was no response to his knocks, the officer entered the house and found appellant Prado and another man seated on a couch in the living room.

People v. Prado

AI Brief

CHRISTIAN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief