Barillas

People v. Barillas

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 487·45 Cal. App. 4th 1233·53 Cal. Rptr. 2d 418·96 Daily Journal DAR 6162·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3835
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 28, 1996B085388California3,285 words

Opinion

Opinion

Vogel, J.

I

Introduction

Following a jury trial, defendants Omar Waldo Barillas and Edward Hurtado were each convicted of two counts of second degree burglary and sentenced to state prison. Because neither attacks the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the convictions, we need not and do not recite the facts of the crimes. Instead, we limit our opinion to an analysis of their respective contentions and the facts pertinent thereto. In the published portion of the opinion, we evaluate Barillas’s contention that he was denied his state constitutional right to counsel because his trial attorney was suspended from practice during the last three days of a six-day trial. In the nonpublished portion of the opinion, we consider Hurtado’s contention that the trial court erred when it failed to obtain his personal waiver of presence at a readback to the jury of a portion of the trial testimony and we address the Attorney General’s claims of sentencing error. Because we find no merit to either defendant’s contention of error, we affirm the convictions, making minor modifications to the judgments to reflect the imposition of $200 restitution fines and the proper amount of conduct…

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.