People v. Lizarraga

California Court of Appeal Jul 15, 2003 No. C041206Published

Before: Sims

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A defendant waives the right to challenge on appeal a trial court's failure to consider a California Rehabilitation Center (CRC) commitment if the issue was not raised in the trial court. Furthermore, the court held that the defendant failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the omission.

Issues

Whether a defendant waives the right to appeal a trial court's failure to consider a CRC commitment by not raising the issue at sentencing.
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a CRC commitment.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We find defendant waived the issue by not raising it in the trial court, and we reject his fallback argument that his trial counsel was ineffective for not raising the issue.”

“The waiver doctrine only limits the defendant’s ability to challenge the trial court’s failure to do so when he or she has not raised the issue in the trial court.”

“Because there are numerous plausible reasons why counsel did not request a CRC commitment, no ineffectiveness of counsel appears on this record.”

Opinion

SIMS, J.

A jury convicted defendant Robert Wayne Lizarraga of receiving stolen property. (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a).) The trial court sentenced him to state prison for the midterm of two years.

On appeal, defendant claims the trial court erred by failing to make a determination as to whether he should be committed to the California Rehabilitation Center (CRC). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 3051.) We find defendant waived the issue by not raising it in the trial court, and we reject his fallback argument that his trial counsel was ineffective for not raising the issue. Consequently, we shall affirm the judgment.

[691]

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On September 29, 1999, defendant was at the scene of a brush fire. A search of his vehicle revealed property stolen from the Sacramento City Fire Department, including a shirt, badge, and flashlight. Defendant was charged with arson of a structure or forest land (Pen. Code, § 451, subd. (c)), in addition to receiving stolen property. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on the arson charge, and it was dismissed on motion of the prosecutor.

Defendant’s record includes 12 misdemeanor convictions in the period from 1988 to 2000. Many of defendant’s convictions are for drug-related offenses, but he has also sustained convictions for fighting, causing loud noise, or using offensive words in a public place (Pen. Code, § 415), theft (Pen. Code, § 484), falsely reporting a crime (Pen. Code, § 148.5, subd. (a)), and receiving stolen property. Defendant has served multiple jail terms in conjunction with repeated grants of probation.

In connection with sentencing in this case, defendant admitted a history of drug abuse and requested probation. In arguing the matter, his counsel claimed defendant was “not on drugs now.” The trial court denied probation, citing the circumstances of the crime and other factors relating to defendant. For example, the court commented on defendant’s prior record and conduct, his poor performance on previous grants of probation, and his drug problem.

People v. Lizarraga

AI Brief

SIMS, J.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISPOSITION

AI Brief