People v. Studer CA5

California Court of Appeal Jun 4, 2014 No. F066340Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that even if the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a prior burglary at the victim's residence, any such error was harmless because the evidence of the defendant's guilt for the charged offenses was overwhelming.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a prior burglary at the victim's residence.
Whether the admission of evidence of a prior burglary rendered the trial fundamentally unfair in violation of due process.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“even assuming that the jury drew the inference that appellant burglarized the house the day prior to the day of the offenses charged in the instant case, any error in admitting evidence of the July 11 burglary was harmless.”

“The challenged evidence added virtually nothing to the prosecution case.”

“From our conclusion that an error in admitting the challenged evidence was harmless under state law standards, it follows that admission of this evidence did not render the trial fundamentally unfair.”

Filed 6/4/14 P. v. Studer CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F066340 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. TF006044A) v.

TRAVIS STUDER, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Cory Woodward, Judge. James Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez, Leanne LeMon and Lewis A. Martinez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Peña, J. and Sarkisian, J.† † Judge of the Superior Court of Fresno County, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

Appellant, Travis Studer, was charged with committing the following offenses on July 12, 2012:1 attempted first degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 212.5 subd. (a), 664),2 first degree burglary (§§ 459, 460, subd. (a)), and assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). It was also alleged that in committing the count 1 offense, appellant personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). A jury convicted appellant on counts 1 and 2, found the enhancement allegation true, and acquitted appellant on count 3. The court imposed a prison term of five years. On appeal, appellant contends the court erred prejudicially in admitting evidence that the victim’s house was burglarized on July 11. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Facts - Prosecution Case In July 2012, Roberto Ruiz owned a house and was in the process of selling it and moving out.3 On July 11, when appellant was not at the house, someone had entered the garage attached to the house and stolen a generator and some batteries located in the garage that were part of the solar-powered electrical system of the house. Because of the burglary that had occurred earlier that day, Ruiz was staying overnight at the house on the night of July 11-12, along with his nephew, Joel Gonzalez. Because of the theft of the generator and batteries, the house had no electricity. Gonzalez testified to the following: At some point “in the middle of the night,” he “heard a door smash.” He went to the window and saw, parked in the driveway, a station wagon “that didn’t belong [on] the property.” He went to the room where Ruiz was sleeping and asked his uncle if he was expecting anyone.

People v. Studer CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief