People v. Uribe CA4/2

California Court of Appeal Jul 3, 2014 No. E059294Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant's challenge to the admission of a dying declaration was barred by the law of the case doctrine and binding California Supreme Court precedent. The court also directed the trial court to correct clerical ambiguities in the minutes of the sentencing hearing.

Issues

Whether the defendant may re-litigate a Confrontation Clause claim previously decided in an earlier appeal.
Whether the trial court's minutes regarding sentencing enhancements require correction for clarity.

Disposition. Affirmed with directions.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the position we took on this issue in the original opinion is law of the case, and, as such, may not be attacked by defendant in this subsequent appeal.”

Filed 7/3/14 P. v. Uribe CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, E059294

v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF123822)

DAVID RUBEN URIBE, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Craig G. Riemer, Judge.

Affirmed with directions.

Richard A. Levy, 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 Joy

Utomi, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In People v. Uribe, et al. (March 13, 2013, E053314) (original opinion), this court,

inter alia, rejected the assertion of defendant, David Uribe, that the dying declaration of

the victim was admitted into evidence in violation of the Confrontation Clause. Also, as

part of that opinion, we reversed, for insufficiency of the evidence, inter alia, the jury’s

People v. Uribe CA4/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

DAVID RUBEN URIBE, OPINION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

ISSUE AND DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS RAMIREZ P. J.

RICHLI J.

KING J.

AI Brief