People v. Espino CA4/1

INTRODUCTION

Isak Espino appeals a judgment of conviction after a jury found him guilty of the first degree murder of Dante Lopez (Pen. Code, § 187,

subd. (a)),1 and returned true findings on firearm enhancements associated with the murder charge (§ 12022.53, subds. (b)–(d)). Espino presents three claims of error on appeal. First, he argues the trial court exceeded its authority under state law and violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution by limiting his cross-examination of a percipient witness who identified him as the presumed killer. Second, he argues the court erroneously instructed the jury regarding its consideration of accomplice testimony. Third, he argues the abstract of judgment contains a clerical error because it states he was sentenced under the Three Strikes law when in fact the prosecution never pleaded or proved he suffered prior serious or violent felony convictions. We agree with Espino that the trial court violated state law by restricting his cross-examination of the witness who named him as the presumed killer. However, we conclude the error of state law was harmless. We reject Espino’s…