Dieguez

People v. Dieguez

Bad Law
107 Cal. Rptr. 2d 160·89 Cal. App. 4th 266
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 22, 2001A091657; A093253California5,394 words

Opinion

Opinion

McGUINESS, J.

Appellant Eliodoro Dieguez was convicted of perjury and one count of making a false material statement in support of a workers’ compensation claim, in violation of Insurance Code section 1871.4, subdivision (a)(1). The jury also found the jurisdictional clause true as to the false material statement count, but not true as to the perjury count. The trial court granted appellant three years’ felony formal probation, on the condition he serve a 120-day jail term as to which he could apply for electronic home detention.

On appeal, appellant contends we must reverse his conviction because the trial court failed sua sponte to give either a unanimity instruction pursuant to CALJIC No. 17.01, or an instruction on the element of specific intent to defraud with respect to the charge under section 1871.4. Both in his direct appeal and by way of petition for writ of habeas corpus, appellant contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel because of the failure of his trial attorney to seek an instruction on specific intent or to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to confer jurisdiction on Contra Costa County to prosecute him under section 1871.4. We disagree with all…

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.