People v. Acuna CA2/6

Filed 5/27/21 P. v. Acuna CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B307813 (Super. Ct. No. 20F-02208) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

EDWARD DOMINIK ALEXIS ACUNA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Edward Dominik Acuna appeals from the judgment after a jury convicted him of possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code,1 § 29800, subd. (a)(1); count 4), dissuading a witness from prosecuting a crime (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(2); count 5), and disobeying a court order (§ 273.6, subd. (a); count 9). The trial court sentenced him to two years eight months in state prison

1 Further unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.

(two years for count 4, a consecutive eight months for count 5, and the sentence for count 9 stayed). Acuna contends (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for possessing a firearm; and (2) he is entitled to additional presentence credits. We modify the judgment to award nine additional days of presentence credit, but otherwise affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Acuna’s girlfriend, M.V., reported that he pointed a gun at her during a fight. When a police officer responded, M.V. told the officer that Acuna pulled the gun from his pocket and pointed it at her. She said she heard a click when Acuna took the safety off the gun. She was scared and did not know if he was going to shoot her. M.V. described the gun as small and black. She was “pretty sure” it was real. She said Acuna had purchased the gun for $500 about a month before the incident. During a second interview at the police station, M.V. showed the officer a picture message on her cell phone from Acuna. The photograph showed Acuna holding a gun. A firearms expert opined that the gun was “consistent in appearance” with a Smith & Wesson handgun. The day after the incident, another officer met M.V. and her friend. The friend told the officer that Acuna messaged her and had a “Face Time” video call with her. During the Face Time call, Acuna said that “he had gotten rid of the firearm.” In the text messages, Acuna wrote: “They’re going to try to cross- examine [M.V. to] get her to testify . . . Just make sure she tells them she was just being dramatic to try to get my attention or something. Have [M.V.] make it summin [sic] up and make sure she sticks to it.”