P. v. Buono
Filed 3/9/06 P. v. Buono CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LOUIS JULIAN BUONO, Defendant and Appellant.
| B179712 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA253245) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Judith Champagne, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
Marilee Marshall & Associates, Inc. and Jennifer L. Peabody, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Mary Sanchez and April S. Rylaarsdam, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
______________________________________
INTRODUCTION
A jury convicted defendant and appellant Louis Julian Buono of assault with a deadly weapon with force likely to produce great bodily injury and assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)).[1] The jury also found true the special allegation that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim within the meaning of section 12022.7, subdivision (a), during the commission of the assault with a deadly weapon. The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for six years.
On appeal, defendant contends there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that he personally inflicted great bodily injury, the trial court's instructions on the great bodily injury enhancement lowered the prosecution's burden of proof, and the trial court abused its discretion in failing to strike the sentence for that enhancement; there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury and the sentence for that conviction should have been stayed under section 654; and the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by asking defendant if two of the prosecution's witnesses had lied in their testimony. We reject defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the great bodily injury finding, but hold that the great bodily injury finding must be reversed due to instructional error. We otherwise affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
Defendant owned Louie Electrical Repair. Mr. Tansey[2] hired defendant to perform some electrical work on his home on July 30, 2003. Defendant hired Benjamin Zuniga, an electrician with whom he had worked for some 10 to 20 years, to assist him on the Tansey job. Ignacio â€
