P. v. Quiroz CA2/4
Filed 4/26/13 P. v. Quiroz CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR
THE PEOPLE, B241039
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA089299) v.
IVAN QUIROZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Laura Laesecke, Judge. Affirmed. Craig C. Kling, 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, Susan Sullivan Pithey and Louis W. Karlin, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
A jury convicted defendant Ivan Quiroz of burglary (Pen. Code, § 459), finding the burglary was in the first degree because defendant entered an inhabited dwelling with the intent to commit larceny.1 Quiroz was sentenced to the upper term of six years in state prison. Defendant contends on appeal that the trial court erred by admitting testimony by a fingerprint expert that her analysis had been verified by two other forensic analysts in her laboratory, in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to confront adverse witnesses. Because we conclude any error in admitting the testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, we affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Claudia Sanchez and her four children came to Southern California for vacation, arriving in Long Beach the morning of November 4, 2010. She checked into the Hotel Current, room 127, a corner, ground floor room with two beds and a bathroom. She was given two keycards, which she kept in her possession. The bathroom window faced the parking lot behind the hotel where her car was parked. The family put their luggage in the room, had breakfast, and at around 10:00 a.m. they prepared to leave for Disneyland. Sanchez made sure the bathroom window was shut, the lights and air conditioning were turned off, and the front window and door were closed and locked. As she drove away, she saw that the bathroom window and screen were undamaged. The Sanchez family returned to their hotel room around 1:00 a.m. the following morning. As soon as she parked near the hotel room, she saw that the lights were turned on in the room, the bathroom window screen was bent open, and the bathroom window was open. The door to the room was propped open with the hinge used to lock the door from the inside. Sanchez looked inside the room and saw that the television set and
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)