P. v. Valenzuela CA5

California Court of Appeal Jul 1, 2013 No. F063102Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant was bound by his own joint stipulation regarding his knowledge of the controlled substances and that the prosecutor's closing argument did not improperly shift the burden of proof to the defendant.

Issues

Did the trial court err in admitting a stipulation regarding the defendant's knowledge of the controlled substances?
Did the prosecutor engage in prejudicial misconduct by commenting on the defense's failure to present expert testimony?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Since Valenzuela offered the stipulation into evidence jointly with the prosecution, he is bound by it and there is no merit to his claim that the court erred in admitting the stipulation into evidence.”

Filed 7/1/13 P. v. Valenzuela CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F063102/F063301 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. BF135839A, v. BF131733A)

RAUL CASTRO VALENZUELA, OPINION Defendant ant Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Sidney P. Chapin, Judge. Daniel G. Koryn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Hokans and J. Robert Jibson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Peña, J.

In case No. BF131733A, appellant, Raul Castro Valenzuela, pled no contest to transportation or sale of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)).1 On July 26, 2010, the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Valenzuela on probation for three years on condition that he serve one year in local custody. In case No. BF135839A, a jury convicted Valenzuela of transportation or sale of cocaine (count 1), possession for sale of cocaine (count 2/§ 11351), possession for sale of methamphetamine (count 4/§ 11378), and driving without a valid driver‟s license (count 6/Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a)). In a separate proceeding, the court found true a prior conviction enhancement (§ 11370.2, subd. (a)) and revoked Valenzuela‟s probation in case No. BF133733A. On August 9, 2011, the court sentenced Valenzuela in both cases to an aggregate term of nine years eight months as follows: the upper term of five years on count 1; a three-year prior conviction enhancement on that count; a one-year term on count 2 (one third the middle term of three years); an eight-month term on count 4 (one third the middle term of two years); time served on count 6; and a concurrent three-year term on Valenzuela‟s conviction for transportation or sale of cocaine in case No. BF131733A. On appeal, Valenzuela contends: 1) the court erred in admitting a stipulation into evidence; and 2) the prosecutor engaged in prejudicial misconduct during his closing argument. We affirm. FACTS2 Valenzuela’s Jury Trial The prosecution evidence established that on February 25, 2011, at approximately 12:40 p.m., after Valenzuela drove into a service station, Kern County Sheriff‟s Deputy

P. v. Valenzuela CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief