P. v. Cortes CA2/8

Filed 3/25/13 P. v. Cortes CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B239895

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA027770) v.

ROMAUALDO AGUILAR CORTES,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Laura F. Priver, Judge. Affirmed as modified.

Johanna R. Shargel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Lawrence M. Daniels and Allison H. Chung, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

********

We affirm appellant Romaualdo Aguilar Cortes‟s conviction for voluntary manslaughter and modify his conduct credits. On appeal, appellant argues the information charging him with murder should have been dismissed because he previously was “convicted of murder in a Mexican court, and served time.” Appellant‟s argument lacks merit because insufficient evidence supports his statement that he suffered a conviction in Mexico based on the same conduct underlying his California conviction. Appellant failed to provide a judgment or minute order indicating he was convicted of any offense in Mexico and therefore failed to satisfy his burden of demonstrating a foreign conviction. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURE Evidence at appellant‟s preliminary hearing showed that on September 29, 1990, appellant, his brother, and Jorge Silverio were together in Los Angeles. Silverio insulted appellant and may have put appellant in a headlock. Appellant stabbed Silverio in the chest with a knife. The next day, appellant fled to Mexico. Silverio died of one stab wound to the chest. On May 12, 2011, back in Los Angeles, appellant was charged with one count of murder. The People alleged appellant killed Silverio unlawfully and with malice aforethought. Appellant moved to dismiss the case because, according to him, under Penal Code former section 656, he could not be prosecuted for an act for which he previously had been convicted in another country. In 1990, section 656 provided: “Whenever on the trial of an accused person it appears that upon a criminal prosecution under the laws of another state, government, or country, founded upon the act or omission in respect to which he is on trial, he has been acquitted or convicted, it is a sufficient defense.”1