legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Albino

P. v. Albino
02:21:2007

P


P. v. Albino


Filed 1/19/07  P. v. Albino CA6


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS


 


California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT







THE PEOPLE,


Plaintiff and Respondent,


          v.


ARTURO ALBINO,


Defendant and Appellant.



      H028693


     (Monterey County


      Super.Ct.No. SS030033A)


            Defendant Arturo Albino appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction of several crimes arising out of an attack on his wife.  He challenges certain aspects of the sentence imposed.


STATEMENT OF FACTS


            Maria Isabelle Albino (Maria) had been married to defendant since 1995.  The couple lived in Soledad with their two small children.  In October 2002, defendant went to Mexico to seek the aid of curanderos (native healers) because of his frequent epileptic seizures accompanied by mental disturbances.  He showed signs of extreme jealousy and thoughts that his family should all die together.  Maria and the children moved in with her parents; when defendant returned from Mexico, he moved in with his sister.  Sometime in December 2002, Maria went to the sister's house to retrieve the children.  Defendant got angry, hit her and pulled her hair.  Maria called the police.  Defendant told the investigating police officer that he hit his wife because she had no reason to wake the children.  Defendant also said his wife was performing black magic on him.


            On February 3, 2003, defendant told Maria to meet him at McDonald's so he could give her the documents for their tax forms.  At the restaurant, defendant came over to Maria's car, showed her photographs of their children and said he was returning the photographs to her, but he was keeping a photograph of her.  Defendant went back to his car to get the tax documents, then got into the passenger seat of Maria's car.  He grabbed her cell phone and told her to drive toward the freeway.  When she refused, he pulled a knife from his sleeve and poked her in the side.  Defendant said he would not let her be with another man.  At one point, Maria tried to grab the knife from him and cut her hand.[1]  Defendant then put the knife between her legs and said she was not going to have another man's child.  He insisted she drive the car, but she showed him the cuts on her hand.


            Defendant then pointed the knife at Maria and told her to move to the passenger seat; he got in the driver's seat, but she reminded him the car belonged to her father.  He agreed to go in his car and told her â€





Description Defendant appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction of several crimes arising out of an attack on his wife. Defendant challenges certain aspects of the sentence imposed.
The judgment is modified to strike the true finding on the enhancement allegation of personal use of a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, S 12022, subd. (b)(1)) as to count 1. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed as modified. The superior court is ordered to send a certified copy of the modified abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale