Belmares

People v. Belmares

Bad Law
106 Cal. App. 4th 19·130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 400·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 183·2003 Daily Journal DAR 1503·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1195
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 6, 2003F039060California3,385 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gomes, J.

Factual and Procedural History

After starting to argue and fight with two young men, Edward Belmares (convicted herein as Edward Balmares) hit one on the head with a rock. Two deputy sheriffs who struggled to restrain him pepper-sprayed him, took him to the ground, and secured his legs to his handcuffs before he finally stopped kicking and yelling. A jury found him guilty of assault with a deadly weapon, deterring an executive officer from performing a lawful duty (deterring), and resisting a peace officer in the discharge of an official duty (resisting). (Pen. Code, §§ 245, subd. (a)(1), 69, 148, subd. (a)(1). ) At a bifurcated trial, the jury found two allegations of prior prison terms true. (§§ 667.5, subd. (b), 969b. )

Issues on Appeal

On appeal, Belmares raises two arguments. First, on the premise that resisting is a lesser included offense of deterring, he argues the judgment violates the rule against grounding multiple convictions in necessarily included offenses. (§ 954.) Second, on the premise that he had a constitutional right to a jury trial on the identity of the person in the section 969b packet, he argues the court’s instructing the jury without finding…

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.