Huggins

People v. Huggins

Good Law
235 Cal. App. 4th 715
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 1, 2015A139104California1,419 words

Opinion

Opinion

Simons, J.

The Penal Code requires corroboration for the testimony of an accomplice (Pen. Code, § lili) and an in-custody informant (§ 1111.5). In the published portion of this opinion we address a question of first impression: May an accomplice and in-custody informant corroborate each other? We conclude they may. In the unpublished portion of the opinion, we correct certain sentencing errors and otherwise affirm.

BACKGROUND

We recite only the facts relevant to this appeal. In June 2010, appellant George Scott Huggins, Jr., and his then girlfriend, Althea Housley, robbed Ivan Gomez and Margarita Bermudez in Oakland. Appellant shot Gomez during the robbery. The following month, in Oakland, appellant and Housley robbed Hai Huang and Jinghong Kang. During the robbery, appellant shot Kang in the chest and killed him. Appellant received $10, a Chase card, and a GPS system from the second robbery.

Housley was initially charged as a codefendant in this case. Prior to trial, she entered into a plea agreement providing a reduced sentence in exchange for her testimony at appellant’s trial. Housley testified that she and appellant committed the two robberies described above and that…

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.