People v. Moya

California Court of Appeal Mar 17, 1992 No. Docket Nos. E007821, E008374Published

Before: Hollenhorst

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendants' convictions for kidnapping and conspiracy, holding that the 1990 amendment to Penal Code section 207 did not change simple kidnapping from a general intent crime to a specific intent crime. The court also held that the trial court erred in its sentencing by failing to stay certain counts pursuant to Penal Code section 654.

Issues

Whether the 1990 amendment to Penal Code section 207 added a specific intent requirement to the crime of simple kidnapping.
Whether the trial court violated Penal Code section 654 in its sentencing of the defendants.

Disposition. Affirmed in part and remanded with directions.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Nothing on the face of the section as amended supports Blanca’s contention that a defendant must intend to instill fear when he or she uses force to kidnap a victim. Simple kidnapping traditionally has been a general intent crime.”

“Rather than modifying and defining (and thereby limiting) the word “forcibly” as contended by Blanca, the phrase “by any other means of instilling fear” expands the types of methods by which a person can overcome the free will of his or her victim.”

Synopsis

[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]

Opinion

HOLLENHORST, Acting P. J.

After a jury trial, all three defendants, Rigoberto Salazar Angulo (Rigo), Jose Manuel Moya (Moya) and Blanca Angulo-Rodriguez (Blanca), were found guilty of kidnapping for ransom (Pen. Code, § 209, subd. (a)

and conspiracy to commit kidnapping for ransom. (§§ 182, 209.) Blanca was also convicted of one count of burglary.

[914]

(§ 459.)

Defendants were each sentenced to life with possibility of parole for the conspiracy and kidnapping counts. With respect to Rigo and Moya the court ordered the life sentences for the kidnapping and conspiracy counts to run concurrently. The court, acting pursuant to section 654, stayed the life sentence on the conspiracy charge in sentencing Blanca but imposed an upper term of six years for the burglary charge to run concurrently with her life sentence on the kidnapping charge.

On appeal, defendants raise the following issues: (1) the trial court erred in admitting the prior recorded testimony of Letecia Melecio; (2) the court erred in admitting the prior recorded testimony of Vanessa Angulo Moya; (3) the court erred in its instructions regarding mistake of fact and mistake of law (CALJIC Nos. 4.35 & 4.36

); (4) the court failed to instruct on all of the elements of simple kidnapping; (5) the court erred in failing to instruct on the need for jury unanimity with respect to the overt acts for conspiracy (CALJIC No. 17.01); (6) the court violated section 654 in its sentencing; (7) their life sentences constitute cruel and unusual punishment; and (8) prosecutorial misconduct. We affirm the judgments of convictions, reject their contentions of cruel and unusual punishment but agree the trial court erred under section 654. Accordingly we will direct the trial court to prepare amended abstracts of judgment.

Facts

On March 30, 1989, Aurora Imelda Corrales (Imelda) lived in Riverside with her husband and children, including her four-and-one-half-year-old daughter, Adriana. Around noon that day, Imelda’s sister, Blanca, came to the house with her children. Shortly after arriving, Blanca and/or her daughter Vanessa went back down to the car to get a diaper bag. Imelda’s children, including Adriana, went outside also. Approximately 15 minutes later, Imelda noticed that Adriana was missing. Imelda was extremely upset and eventually called the police. Blanca appeared unconcerned.

People v. Moya

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

II-IVB

AI Brief