People v. Sanchez

[218]

Opinion

RICKLES, J.

The defendant Jesse Juarez Sanchez was found guilty by a jury of one count of robbery. He was sentenced to state prison for the middle term of three years. The execution of sentence was stayed and he was placed on probation with certain terms and conditions, including a period of incarceration.

Sanchez appeals, contending the trial court erred in: (1) ruling that his juvenile court adjudication could be used for impeachment purposes; and (2) permitting rehabilitation of a witness through the use of prior consistent statements. Sanchez does not dispute the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury verdict. The facts will be discussed as necessary to resolve his other contentions.

I

Sanchez correctly contends the trial court erred in ruling his prior juvenile court adjudication could be utilized for impeachment purposes. He is wrong that this ruling constituted prejudicial error.

The trial court found that Sanchez’ recent juvenile adjudication of felony conduct (burglary) met both the

Beagle

and constitutional tests for admissibility.

(People

v.

Beagle

(1972) 6 Cal.3d 441 [99 Cal.Rptr. 313, 492 P.2d 1]; Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (f).) At the same time, it declined to allow an adjudication of theft of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851) for impeachment purposes. The burglary was committed by Sanchez when he was almost 18 and the vehicle theft when he was 15. The

Beagle

analysis, though helpful in evaluating prejudice, is irrelevant unless the Constitution changed existing law. We need not tarry too long over this issue. Article I, section 28, subdivision (f), provides in pertinent part: “Any prior

felony conviction