People v. Sandoval CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 13, 2025C098759California2,439 words

Opinion

Opinion

BACKGROUND

To place defendant’s petition in context, we provide certain underlying facts set forth in the preliminary hearing transcript that was attached to defendant’s petition. Our decision does not rely on those facts. In 2010, Danny and Brian Fountain lived at a house in the Meadowview neighborhood of Sacramento.2 Danny sold methamphetamine out of a shed in the backyard. Scott Hansen also stayed at the house. Defendant used methamphetamine and knew Danny. Toward the end of the year, Danny accused defendant’s girlfriend of stealing from him. On December 31, defendant met with Bryan Smith, Joseph Conn, and Arsenio Barajas to plan a robbery of money or drugs from a safe that was in the shed in the backyard of the Meadowview house. The plan was for defendant to drive Smith, Conn, and Barajas to the house, drop them off, and then drive to a nearby school where they would meet him after committing the robbery. The plan also called for Smith, Conn, and Barajas to wear face coverings and carry weapons because defendant anticipated they would encounter resistance. Smith had a pickax handle, and Barajas had a piece of wood that could be used as a club. Conn had a pair of bolt cutters…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.