People v. Piedra CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN306903
- Trial judge
- Robert J. Kearney
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Patricia D. Benke (author), Alex C. McDonald, Joan K. Irion
Analysis
The trial court convicted the defendant of spousal abuse, child endangerment, and hit and run with injury, and sentenced him to 12 years and 8 months in prison based on a prior strike conviction. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on jury instructions, evidence, sufficiency of evidence, or sentencing discretion.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Admission of CALCRIM No. 332 jury instruction regarding expert testimony“In light of that testimony, CALCRIM No. 332, which advises the jury with respect to how they should evaluate expert testimony, was appropriate.” | unclear | correct | agree with court agree with court |
Admission of redacted 911 call recording“The trial court properly admitted both the bank employee's statements and the other witnesses' confirmation under the spontaneous utterance exception to the hearsay rule. (Evid. Code, § 1240, subd. (b).)” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court agree with court |
Sufficiency of evidence for child endangerment conviction“Evidence Piedra was driving through a red light at excessive speed in order to avoid apprehension by law enforcement officers, with his infant daughter as a passenger, was more than sufficient to support Piedra's child endangerment conviction.” | substantial evidence | correct | agree with court agree with court |
Denial of motion to strike prior strike conviction“In light of the fact Piedra spent most of the time following his prior strike conviction in prison, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to strike the strike. (See People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, 529-530.)” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court agree with court |
Sufficiency of evidence for spousal abuse conviction“Martinez's and the bank employee's testimony was sufficient to support the spousal abuse conviction.” | substantial evidence | correct | agree with court agree with court |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the duty of appointed appellate counsel to review the entire record for error when no arguable issues are identified.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any possible, though not arguable, issues to assist the court in its independent review.
- relied: People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 — Establishes the standard for trial court discretion in striking a prior serious or violent felony conviction under the Three Strikes Law.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing a case where counsel found no arguable issues. The court independently reviewed the record and addressed the specific issues raised by counsel, applying the correct legal standards for each.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionA San Diego jury convicted Piedra of spousal abuse, child endangerment, and hit and run with injury, and after he admitted a prior strike the trial court denied his Romero motion and sentenced him to 12 years eight months. On a Wende appeal with no supplemental brief from Piedra, the Court of Appeal considered the six possible issues flagged by counsel, found no arguable error, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 332 (evaluation of expert testimony) over defense objection“In light of that testimony, CALCRIM No. 332, which advises the jury with respect to how they should evaluate expert testimony, was appropriate.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The prosecution called an accident reconstructionist who gave opinion testimony; where expert opinion is received, the instruction on weighing expert testimony is required (Pen. Code, § 1127b), so giving it was plainly proper. The opinion does not name a standard of review but the conclusion follows from the record it describes. |
Admission of redacted 911 recording, including bank employee's and bystanders' description of Piedra, under the spontaneous statement exception (Evid. Code, § 1240)“The trial court properly admitted both the bank employee's statements and the other witnesses' confirmation under the spontaneous utterance exception to the hearsay rule.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Statements to a 911 dispatcher made moments after witnessing an abduction-type confrontation fit the spontaneous statement exception, and the challenged content (the defendant's approximate age) was innocuous. The opinion's cite to 'subd. (b)' of section 1240 is imprecise since the exception is the section as a whole, but the result is correct; the court does not state the abuse of discretion standard that ordinarily governs. |
Sufficiency of the evidence supporting the child endangerment conviction (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a))“Evidence Piedra was driving through a red light at excessive speed in order to avoid apprehension by law enforcement officers, with his infant daughter as a passenger, was more than sufficient to support Piedra's child endangerment conviction.” | substantial evidence | correct | agree with court Fleeing police at roughly 60 miles per hour through a red light with an 11-month-old in the back seat, resulting in a collision that injured the child, readily satisfies the element of placing a child in circumstances likely to produce great bodily harm under criminal negligence or willful conduct. |
Denial of motion to strike the prior strike conviction (Romero motion)“In light of the fact Piedra spent most of the time following his prior strike conviction in prison, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to strike the strike.” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court The court applied the correct Romero/abuse-of-discretion framework and pointed to a legitimate factor (minimal time at liberty since the prior strike) showing Piedra does not fall outside the spirit of the Three Strikes law; the current violent and dangerous conduct also supports the ruling. The analysis is brief but defensible. |
Imposition of consecutive sentences on the spousal abuse and child endangerment convictions“(5) whether the court properly imposed consecutive sentences on the spousal abuse and child endangerment convictions” | unclear | not reached | unsure Counsel listed this as a possible issue, but the Discussion never specifically addresses it; it is covered only by the general statement that Wende review disclosed no arguable issue. Because the offenses involved separate victims (Martinez and Emme) and separate acts, consecutive terms were likely proper, but the opinion gives no analysis to evaluate. |
Sufficiency of the evidence supporting the spousal abuse conviction (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a))“Martinez's and the bank employee's testimony was sufficient to support the spousal abuse conviction.” | substantial evidence | correct | unsure The opinion relies on the testimony of the victim and an eyewitness, which under the substantial evidence standard suffices if credited by the jury. The Background section describes only pushing and does not expressly describe a traumatic condition (an element of § 273.5), so the opinion's own factual recital is thin, but the court states the testimony supported the verdict and the record is not before me to say otherwise. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for arguable issues before affirming.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous may file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal to assist the court's independent review.
- relied: People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 — Trial courts have discretion under Penal Code section 1385 to strike prior strike convictions, and the ruling is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure, addresses most of counsel's flagged issues with correct governing principles, and reaches results the recited facts amply support. It is nonetheless cursory: it never specifically discusses the consecutive-sentencing issue counsel raised, cites Evidence Code section 1240 by a nonexistent operative subdivision, and gives no factual detail on the traumatic-condition element of spousal abuse.
Opinion
Filed 10/14/14 P. v. Piedra CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN 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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D064564
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN306903)
EMILIO PASCUAL PIEDRA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert J.
Kearney, Judge. Affirmed.
Leonard J. Klaif, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury found defendant and appellant Emilio Pascual Piedra guilty of one count of spousal abuse (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)), one count of child endangerment (§ 273a, subd. (a)), and one count of hit and run with injury (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (a)). Because of one prior strike conviction under Penal Code sections 667, subdivisions (b)
through (i), 1170.12 and 668, which Piedra admitted, the court sentenced Piedra to a prison term of 12 years eight months.
Piedra timely appealed from the judgment of conviction. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), appointed counsel filed a brief on behalf of Piedra setting forth the facts of the case and requesting this court review the entire record. In addition, pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, appointed counsel set forth the following possible, but not arguable, issues to assist us in conducting our Wende review: (1) whether the court, over a defense objection, properly instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 332; (2) whether the court properly admitted a redacted recording of a witness's 911 call; (3) whether there is sufficient evidence to support the child endangerment conviction; (4) whether the trial court erred in failing to strike Piedra's prior strike conviction; (5) whether the court properly imposed consecutive sentences on the spousal abuse and child endangerment convictions; and (6) whether there was sufficient evidence to support the spousal abuse conviction.
On our own motion, we gave Piedra 30 days to file a brief on his behalf with this court. Piedra has not filed a brief.
BACKGROUND
On June 2, 2012, Piedra met his estranged wife, Claudia Martinez, at a parking lot in Oceanside. Martinez brought their 11-month-old daughter, Emme, with her so that Piedra could see Emme. At that point in time, Piedra was homeless.
When Martinez arrived, Piedra began arguing with her. During the course of the 2 argument, Martinez got out of her car. As the argument escalated, Piedra tried to push Martinez back into her car. Martinez resisted and called for help. An employee of a nearby bank approached Martinez and Piedra and, in response, Piedra got in Martinez's car and drove away with Emme in the back seat. The bank employee called 911, and the employee and Martinez reported what had transpired to the dispatcher.
Law enforcement officers, alerted to Piedra's flight, located Piedra. One of the officers drove up next to Piedra, and Piedra took off; that officer and another law enforcement officer followed Piedra until, running a red light, Piedra hit a truck being driven by Joel Banuelos. Banuelos estimated that Piedra was going approximately 60 miles an hour at the time of the collision. After Piedra hit Banuelos's truck, his car hit a third car. Banuelos's two teenage children were in the truck with him, and one was transported to the hospital in an ambulance complaining of back pain. She was released from the hospital later that day and underwent physical therapy following the accident.
Piedra's daughter, Emme, was airlifted to a local hospital and treated for cuts on her face from broken glass and a bruise near her right eye. Piedra fled from the scene of the collision on foot and was later apprehended.
DISCUSSION
With respect to the possible issues set forth by counsel, we find no grounds for reversal: At trial, the prosecution presented evidence from an accident reconstructionist, who offered his opinion with respect to how the collision between the car Piedra was driving and Banuelos's truck occurred. In light of that testimony, CALCRIM No. 332, which advises the jury with respect to how they should evaluate expert testimony, was 3 appropriate.
Piedra's counsel objected to a portion of the redacted 911 recording in which the bank employee describes Piedra as being approximately 25 years old; other witnesses at the scene can also be heard confirming that description. The trial court properly admitted both the bank employee's statements and the other witnesses' confirmation under the spontaneous utterance exception to the hearsay rule. (Evid. Code, § 1240, subd. (b).)
Evidence Piedra was driving through a red light at excessive speed in order to avoid apprehension by law enforcement officers, with his infant daughter as a passenger, was more than sufficient to support Piedra's child endangerment conviction.
In light of the fact Piedra spent most of the time following his prior strike conviction in prison, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to strike the strike. (See People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, 529- 530.)
Martinez's and the bank employee's testimony was sufficient to support the spousal abuse conviction.
Finally, a review of the entire record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 has disclosed no other reasonably arguable appellate issue. Piedra has been adequately represented both in the trial court and on appeal.
4 DISPOSITION
Piedra's judgment of conviction is affirmed.
BENKE, Acting P. J. WE CONCUR:
McDONALD, J.
IRION, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) S045097 · 1996-06-20
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12