People v. Sarinana CA2/7

California Court of Appeal May 13, 2024 No. B325420Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the prosecutor did not commit Griffin error by commenting that the victim's testimony was uncontradicted, as the defendant could have called other witnesses to dispute the testimony. Furthermore, the court held that the defendant forfeited the claim by failing to object at trial.

Issues

Did the prosecutor commit Griffin error by stating that the victim's testimony was uncontradicted?
Did the defendant forfeit his claim of Griffin error by failing to object at trial?

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the prosecution may not comment upon a defendant’s failure to testify in his or her own behalf.”

“Sarinana forfeited his claim of Griffin error by failing to object to the prosecutor’s statements”

“Because Sarinana could have presented another witness other than himself to contradict or dispute Gonzalez’s testimony, the prosecutor did not commit Griffin error”

Filed 5/13/24 P. v. Sarinana CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B325420

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA152520) v.

FRANK ROBERT SARINANA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lee W. Tsao, Judge. Affirmed. Richard Lennon and Alice Newman, 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, Ana R. Duarte and Kenneth C. Byrne, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________

Frank Robert Sarinana appeals from a judgment entered after a jury convicted him of kidnapping, two counts of inflicting injury on a girlfriend or child’s parent, assault with a firearm, possession of a firearm by a felon, delaying a peace officer, and making a criminal threat. Sarinana’s sole contention on appeal is that the prosecutor committed Griffin1 error when he told the jury in closing argument that the victim’s testimony as to one of two alleged incidents was not contradicted or disputed. Finding no error, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The Evidence at Trial 1. The August 9, 2019 incident Valerie Gonzalez testified that she was in an “off and on” relationship with Sarinana for two-and-a-half years and they had a daughter together. Gonzalez and her daughter lived with Gonzalez’s grandmother. On August 9, 2019 Sarinana came to the home uninvited, and he found Gonzalez and the daughter in the daughter’s room. Sarinana was angry because Gonzalez was pregnant with another man’s child. Sarinana and Gonzalez argued, and Sarinana grabbed Gonzalez’s left arm, leaving a bruise. According to Gonzalez, she was unable to get out of the room, but as she described, “my daughter had run out, so my daughter told my grandma and . . . .”2 Gonzalez called the police,

People v. Sarinana CA2/7

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

THE PEOPLE, B325420

FRANK ROBERT SARINANA,

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

FEUER, J.

AI Brief