People v. Boyzo CA4/3
Filed 4/29/14 P. v. Boyzo CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, G048251
v. (Super. Ct. No. 12WF2500)
FRED BOYZO, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gary S. Paer, Judge. Affirmed. Michael P. Goldstein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Paige B. Hazard, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted Fred Boyzo of possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a); count 1), possession of drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364.1, subd. (a); count 2), and resisting arrest (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a); count 3). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Boyzo on probation for three years. The court awarded 274 days presentence custody credits for the time Boyzo served in jail before trial (137 actual days & 137 conduct credits) and imposed several fees and fines that collectively totaled $570. Boyzo claims the trial court committed instructional error by modifying CALCRIM No. 2656, the instruction for resisting arrest, and he challenges the constitutionality of CALCRIM No. 220, the standard reasonable doubt instruction. He also claims the trial court abused its sentencing discretion by failing to convert four days of presentence custody credits into a monetary equivalent, which could then be used to pay his fines. None of his contentions has merit and we affirm the judgment. FACTS In September 2012, seven or eight officers from the Garden Grove Police Department executed a search warrant at Boyzo’s residence. When the officers arrived at the home, Officers Vincente Vaicaro and Donald Hutchins went to the front door while the other officers detained several individuals in the front yard. Vaicaro and Hutchins wore black polo shirts with “Garden Grove Police” visible on the left hand side, and “Police” written on the back. They also wore their police issued duty belts, and Hutchins wore his badge on his belt. Hutchins testified he had a clear view into the residence from the open front door, and he saw Boyzo standing about 10 to 15 feet from the door with his back facing the officers. With his gun drawn, Hutchins yelled, “‘Garden Grove Police Department. Search Warrant. Demand Entry.’” Hutchins testified Boyzo slowly turned around and said, “Fuck you. I don’t give a fuck.” Vaicaro remembered the statement as “‘Fuck you.
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)