Roa

People v. Roa

Good Law
171 Cal. App. 4th 1175·2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 299·90 Cal. Rptr. 3d 336
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 9, 2009B201676California2,364 words

Opinion

Opinion

O'Neill, J.

Appellant Alejandro Roa was convicted by jury of carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215; undesignated section references are to that code), and being under the influence of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a)), with a finding that he personally used a firearm in the carjacking (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (b)). Sentenced to a term of 15 years, appellant contends that the evidence he used a firearm during the offense was insufficient. Respondent opposes this contention and also asserts that the abstract of judgment should be corrected in various respects. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the firearm enhancement. In so doing, we consider factors concerning out-of-court identifications that were articulated in People v. Cuevas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 252 [ 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 135 , 906 P.2d 1290 ] (Cuevas). We affirm the judgment, after modifying it in accordance with one of respondent’s requests.

FACTS

Viewed in accordance with the governing rules of appellate review (People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206 [ 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 23 , 864 P.2d 103 ]), the evidence at trial showed that on December 22, 2005, Enrique and Maria Avina (Avina and Mrs. Avina)…

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.