People v. Martinez CA2/5
Filed 11/14/13 P. v. Martinez CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
THE PEOPLE, B240371
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA075442) v.
BRAYON MARTIN MARTINEZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stuart M. Rice, Judge. Affirmed. Fay Arfa, a Law Corporation, and Fay Arfa for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, James William Bilderback II, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Marc A. Kohm, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_____________________________
Defendant and appellant Brayon Martin Martinez appeals from the judgment entered after two trials. Prior to the first trial, defendant pled guilty on count 5 to possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1)).1 The jury convicted defendant in count 4 of evading an officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)). The trial court declared a mistrial after the jury deadlocked on counts 1-3 and 6-7. After the information was amended, defendant was convicted in the second trial on counts 6 and 7 of assault on a peace officer with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (d)(2)) and on count 8 of assault with a semiautomatic firearm on an unidentified victim (§ 245, subd. (b)). The jury found true the allegations defendant used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivisions (b) and (c), as to counts 6 and 7, and he used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.5, subdivisions (a) and (d), as to all three counts. The trial court sentenced defendant to 33 years 8 months in state prison. Defendant contends insufficient evidence, instructional error, improper exclusion of evidence, and cumulative error require reversal of the judgment. We affirm.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)