People v. Arango CA2/6

California Court of Appeal Apr 26, 2023 No. B321197MUnpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction and sentence, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering physical restraints based on a manifest need for security, and that the defendant waived his claim regarding the lack of a probation report by insisting on immediate sentencing.

Issues

Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering the defendant to wear a wrist restraint during trial.
Whether the trial court erred by sentencing the defendant without a probation report.
Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to override the defendant's request for immediate sentencing.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court did not abuse its discretion. Arango accrued several disciplinary infractions while in custody in the years prior to trial.”

“There is no evidence in the record showing that any member of the jury was aware that Arango was wearing a wrist restraint.”

Filed 4/26/23 P. v. Arango CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B321197 (Super. Ct. No. 21CR06136) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Santa Barbara County)

v. ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING JONATHAN ARANGO, REHEARING [NO CHANGE IN Defendant and Appellant. JUDGMENT]

THE COURT: It is ordered the opinion filed herein on April 20, 2023, be modified as follows: 1. On page 2, the first sentence of the first paragraph is modified to read as follows:

Arango contends: (1) the judgment should be reversed because he was restrained during trial, and (2) the matter should be remanded for resentencing because the trial court sentenced him without realizing it had

the discretion to wait for the preparation of a probation report before doing so.

2. On page 3, second full paragraph, the following is added as the last sentence of the paragraph, following the sentence ending “incredibly visible and obvious.”:

No one disputed Arango’s arguments.

There is no change in the judgment. Appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied.

GILBERT, P. J. YEGAN, J. BALTODANO, J.

Filed 4/20/23 P. v. Arango CA2/6 (unmodified opinion) 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.

People v. Arango CA2/6

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

GILBERT, P. J. YEGAN, J. BALTODANO, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

JONATHAN ARANGO,

BALTODANO, J.

GILBERT, P. J.

YEGAN, J.

AI Brief