People v. See CA5

California Court of Appeal May 20, 2015 No. F067577Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a witness may properly invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination even after pleading no contest if they remain subject to probation revocation proceedings, and that there was sufficient evidence to establish the minor's age.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in allowing a witness to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for contributing to the delinquency of a minor regarding the minor's age.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Aichang was facing a possible revocation of probation, a new sentence on the underlying charges, and the right to appeal from that new sentence or violation of probation at the time he was called to testify.”

“The trial court’s ruling allowing Aichang to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege was not error and it did not deprive See of the ability to present a defense.”

“We conclude the conviction of codefendant Aichang, plus the testimony of Ford, constituted sufficient evidence that M.S. was a minor at the time of the graffiti incident at the apartment.”

Filed 5/20/15 P. v. See 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F067577 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. VCF261084A) v.

CHALA JESUS SEE, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Joseph A. Kalashian, Judge. Jean M. Marinovich, 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, and Kathleen A. McKenna, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Smith, J.

INTRODUCTION A jury convicted appellant Chala Jesus See of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a violation of Penal Code section 272, subdivision (a)(1),1 and being a felon in possession of a firearm, a violation of section 12021, subdivision (a)(1); various enhancements also were found true. See challenges his conviction for contributing to the delinquency of a minor on the grounds of insufficiency of the evidence. He also contends the trial court erred in allowing a witness to invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to testify, which See claims deprived him of a defense. We will affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Visalia Police Officer Julian Lopez was dispatched to an apartment complex regarding a vandalism complaint. When Lopez arrived at the apartment complex, he saw a Honda with three people inside. Lopez shined his spotlight on the Honda; it immediately pulled away and made an unsafe turn. Lopez activated his patrol vehicle’s overhead lights as he followed the Honda. After a three block pursuit, See, the driver of the Honda, pulled over. In the Honda with See were Aichang See2 and M.S. The two passengers started to get out of the vehicle, but Lopez ordered them at gunpoint to remain inside the vehicle. At this point, Officer Ger Vang and Detective Daniel Ford arrived on the scene. Ford recognized the location where See had stopped the Honda as See’s residence. Aichang and M.S. also lived at the same residence. Ford recognized the location because he had “been inside, around, or near that residence at least 20 times.” Lopez searched the Honda and found a loaded shotgun between the front seats. Shotgun shells were “pushed up under” the passenger seat. A can of blue spray paint was

People v. See CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief