People v. Blanco CA5

California Court of Appeal Aug 29, 2014 No. F067268Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial judge's comments regarding the desirability of a unanimous verdict did not coerce the jury, and that the defendant's admission of prior convictions was voluntary and intelligent under the totality of the circumstances despite incomplete advisements.

Issues

Did the trial court commit instructional error by stating the law prefers unanimous verdicts?
Was the defendant's admission of prior conviction allegations involuntary due to the court's failure to advise him of his rights to confrontation and self-incrimination?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“we reject Blanco’s contention that the court coerced the jury into reaching a verdict simply by telling them the law preferred unanimous verdicts and that the purpose of a trial was for the jury to reach a unanimous verdict.”

“we conclude under a totality of the circumstances that Blanco voluntarily and intelligently admitted the prior conviction allegations.”

Filed 8/29/14 P. v. Blanco 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

Plaintiff and Respondent, F067268

v. (Super. Ct. Nos. F12902111; F08500427)

ERNESTO BLANCO, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. John F. Vogt, Judge. James Bisnow, 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, Stephen G. Herndon and Max Feinstat, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Detjen, Acting P.J., Franson, J., and Peña, J.

In April 2009, in case No. F08500427, appellant, Ernesto Blanco, pled guilty to first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 460, subd. (a))1 and was placed on probation. In case No. F12902111, a jury convicted Blanco of first degree burglary (count 1/§ 460, subd. (a)), receiving stolen property (count 2/§ 496, subd. (a)), and resisting arrest (count 3/§ 148, subd. (a)(1)), arising out of a March 2012 incident. In a separate proceeding, Blanco admitted allegations that he had two prior convictions within the meaning of the three strikes law (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)), two serious felony enhancements (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and two prior prison term enhancements. On April 28, 2013, the court found Blanco violated his probation in case No. F08500427 by engaging in the March 2012 conduct underlying the charges in case No. F12902111. The court then sentenced Blanco to an aggregate term of 35 years to life in both cases: 25 years to life on his burglary conviction in case No. F12902111, two five- year serious felony enhancements, and concurrent terms on the remaining counts including Blanco’s burglary conviction in case No. F08500427. On appeal, Blanco contends: 1) the court committed instructional error; and 2) his admission of the prior conviction allegations was not free and voluntary. We affirm. FACTS The Substantive Offenses On March 25, 2012, at 5:34 p.m., Fresno County Sheriff’s Deputy James Lyman responded to a residence on Jensen Avenue after receiving a dispatch that the garage sensor of an alarm was activated there. While inspecting the garage, Deputy Lyman saw Blanco standing in the backyard. He drew his gun and commanded Blanco to stop and get on the ground but Blanco ran out of the yard. Deputy Lyman chased Blanco into a field where Blanco was eventually taken into custody with the help of a police canine. During a postcustody search, Deputy Lyman found coins, jewelry, pins, a necklace, and a

People v. Blanco CA5

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief