P. v. Limones

Filed 4/12/06 P. v. Limones CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

Santiago Ian Duarte (Ian) and Jillian Rene Herrera (Rene) were brutally murdered, their bodies were placed in the trunk of a car, and the car was set on fire.

Defendants Andrew Florencio Limones and Brandon Ruiz were charged with both murders. A jury convicted defendant Ruiz of two counts of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); unspecified section references that follow are to the Penal Code), found that he personally discharged a handgun in the commission of these offenses (§ 12022.53), and found that he committed multiple murders. (§ 109.2.) The jury found defendant Limones not guilty of murder in count 1 relating to Ian, but convicted him of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter, finding untrue the charge that he was armed with a firearm in the commission of this offense. (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1).) The jury acquitted defendant Limones entirely on count 2, relating to Rene.

The trial court sentenced defendant Limones to the upper term of 11 years, and sentenced defendant Ruiz to an aggregate sentence of life without possibility of parole plus 25 years.

On appeal, both defendants contend that (1) the prosecutor improperly vouched for the credibility of one of its witnesses, (2) the court failed to give the appropriate instructions on accomplice testimony, (3) the court gave improper pinpoint instructions, and (4) CALJIC No. 2.90, the reasonable doubt instruction, is constitutionally infirm. Defendant Limones raises two additional contentions, namely, that the court (1) erred in admitting a statement of codefendant Ruiz and (2) violated principles enunciated in Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [159 L.Ed.2d 403] (Blakely) when imposing sentence.

None of defendants' claims has merit, and we therefore affirm the judgments.

Facts and Proceedings

The evidence presented in this lengthy trial focused on the involvement of numerous individuals in two violent murders. Given the nature of the claims presented in this appeal, we simplify our narrative and provide only a brief outline of the underlying events.

Ian bought drugs from defendant Limones and paid him with two $50 bills. When Limones discovered that the bills were counterfeit, he called Ian about the matter and asked him to come over to the house.

Ian complied, and he met with defendants in one of the bedrooms. Rene, who lived at the house, was also in the room. At some point, defendant Ruiz pulled out a gun and fired at least eight times, killing both Ian and Rene. Ian was also stabbed multiple times. Defendant Limones fled the house.

Defendant Ruiz later told another house resident, his then-girlfriend Melissa E., that he killed Ian because of â€