People v. Lampkin CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 5, 2025C100215California3,966 words

Opinion

Opinion

Mauro, J.

BACKGROUND

Owens testified at the evidentiary hearing, providing a detailed account of the events that unfolded inside the home of brothers Alejandro and Leoncio Jimenez. Our recitation of the relevant facts is based on Owens’s testimony and corroborating evidence contained in the reporter’s transcript from the underlying trial, which was also admitted into evidence by the trial court.2 Owens decided to rob the Jimenez brothers sometime after he was paroled from prison in November 1996. He knew they were drug dealers. Owens wanted to commit a home invasion robbery and knew he could not do so alone, so he thought about who he could “talk into helping.” Owens had known defendant since childhood and thought he could “manipulate him” into helping. Owens explained that defendant was younger, and Owens had “influence” with him because Owens “was fresh out of prison,” which gave him a reputation and “misguided respect,” especially to someone like defendant, who had been released from youth detention. Owens decided to use that as “leverage” to convince defendant to participate in the planned robbery. Owens said he was a gang member and wanted to recruit defendant into his gang. He told…

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.