P.

P. v. Hamilton CA2/5

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 14, 2014B250543California7,242 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kriegler, J.

FACTS

Prosecution

Planning of the Murder and Prior Attempts

Angel Nieto and defendant worked together as security guards at the Promenade Mall before Nieto left to work at another mall. Defendant was Nieto’s supervisor. Gary Mikaelian also worked at the mall, as defendant’s supervisor. Defendant had a son with Anel Juarez. They were engaged in an ongoing custody battle over their son, which angered defendant. Defendant was unhappy with the way Juarez cared for their son, and also was upset because she was stripping at private parties. Defendant told Nieto and Mikaelian about the problems he was having with Juarez.

1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise specified.

2 Nieto saw defendant arguing on the phone with Juarez. Defendant used one phone to call Juarez, and had a second phone to call everyone else. Defendant initially offered Nieto $300 to “fuck [Juarez] up.” Nieto refused, but said he knew someone who would do it and discussed it with his friends Efren and Fabian. In exchange, Nieto would pay Efren and Fabian with marijuana. Defendant paid Nieto $300 and instructed Nieto, Efren, and Fabian to go to a laundromat near defendant’s…

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.