People v. Lopez CA2/7

California Court of Appeal May 17, 2023 No. B318338Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to object to testimony regarding the defendant's prior firearm use, as such evidence was relevant to the defendant's proficiency with firearms and the objection would have been meritless.

Issues

Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to testimony regarding the defendant's prior firearm use.
Whether evidence of the defendant's prior firearm use was relevant and admissible to prove proficiency and intent.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Lopez’s almost daily target practice, during which he often shot at small animals, was relevant to his familiarity with firearms and his ability to hit a moving target from a distance.”

“Because any objection would have been unwarranted, there was no ineffective assistance of counsel.”

Filed 5/17/23 P. v. Lopez CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

THE PEOPLE, B318338

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA062878) v.

ARTURO LOPEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Kathleen Blanchard, Judge. Affirmed. Alex Green, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and David A. Voet, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _____________________________

A jury convicted Arturo Lopez of second degree murder and found true the special firearm-use allegations. On appeal Lopez contends defense counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to object to certain testimony. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. The First Conviction and Reversal of the Judgment In 2016 a jury convicted Lopez of second degree murder, conspiracy to destroy evidence, offering false evidence and three counts of possession of a firearm by a felon. On appeal we reversed the convictions for murder based on instructional error and for offering false evidence for insufficient evidence. The convictions on the remaining four charges were affirmed. (See People v. Lopez (Nov. 13, 2018, B277127) [nonpub. opn.].) 2. The Third Amended Information Following issuance of the remittitur on January 14, 2019, Lopez was recharged in a third amended information with one count of murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)).1 The third amended information included special firearm-use enhancement allegations pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivisions (b), (c) and (d). 3. The Evidence at Trial On the afternoon of February 23, 2014 Stephen Finson left his home in Lancaster to ride his all-terrain cycle (ATC) in the desert. When he did not return home that evening, his wife reported him missing. Finson’s body was found the next morning in the desert. He had been shot in the back of the head through his helmet. The autopsy showed the bullet had entered the back

People v. Lopez CA2/7

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

THE PEOPLE, B318338

ARTURO LOPEZ,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

PERLUSS, P. J.

SEGAL, J.

FEUER, J.

AI Brief