People v. Fuentes CA5

INTRODUCTION

This case concerns a gang-related drive-by shooting that left one man dead and another wounded. Defendant was convicted as the shooter and now raises several claims on appeal. First, he contends that the court improperly admitted hearsay evidence regarding descriptions of a man who visited a house near where the shooting would eventually take place. Defendant also asserts the court improperly declined to instruct on perfect and imperfect self-defense. “In light of the substantial evidence pointing to defendant’s guilt” (People v. Noguera (1992) 4 Cal.4th 599, 623), including two eyewitness identifications made to police, we conclude that no prejudicial error occurred. Defendant also claims the court erred in imposing a parole revocation restitution fine. We conclude that fine was required by Penal Code section 1202.451 because defendant’s determinate term of 78 years and four months in prison “carried with it … a suspended parole revocation restitution fine.” (People v. Brasure (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1037, 1075 (Brasure).) As a result, we find no error.2 Finally, defendant contends, and respondent concedes, that the trial court improperly enhanced the murder conviction…