The People v. Nampula CA4/2
Opinion
Opinion
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant Jose Nampula appeals from his conviction of two counts of attempted
willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder (Pen. Code,1 §§ 664, 187, subd. (a)) with
associated enhancements (§§ 12022.53, subds. (b)-(d), 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)) and his
resulting prison sentence of 80 years to life.
Defendant contends: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motions to suppress
evidence and to quash and traverse the search warrant because the affidavit in support of
the search warrant lacked sufficient information to support a conclusion that he had
committed a crime or that evidence of the crime would be found at his residence; (2) his
confession was involuntary, and its admission at trial violated his constitutional privilege
against self-incrimination, his right to counsel, and his right to due process; and (3) the
sentence of 80 years to life constituted cruel and unusual punishment. We find no error,
and we affirm.
II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Sometime after midnight on May 1, 2008, Carl Vandusen was driving his friends,
R.A. (age 16) and E.A. (also age 16), past E.A.’s house at 1007 West Belleview Street in