P. v. Molina

Filed 8/28/06 P. v. Molina CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 EIGHT

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Barry A. Taylor, Judge. Affirmed.

Oscar B. Valencia, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven E. Mercer and Susan S. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________________

INTRODUCTION

Appellant Lingdhy Molina challenges her attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon convictions on the ground the trial court coerced her jury waiver and her attorney rendered ineffective assistance at trial. We conclude appellant's waiver was not coerced and her trial attorney provided effective assistance.

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Appellant pretended to be an F.B.I. agent and knocked at the door of the apartment Ada Molina^[1] and David Pineda shared with their children. Molina opened the door and appellant entered. When Molina tried unsuccessfully to push appellant out, appellant began striking Molina with a metal stick. Appellant subsequently threatened to kill Molina and stabbed her several times with a small knife while Molina's seven-year-old daughter watched. Molina's daughter recognized appellant and called her by her first name. Molina recognized the name as that of a woman whom Pineda had been seeing. Eventually, Molina fled from her apartment and shouted for neighbors to call 911. Appellant then departed. Although appellant denied being in Molina's apartment when the police interviewed her, DNA testing matched blood on appellant's boots to Molina.

Appellant waived a jury trial. The court convicted appellant of attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon. The court found appellant personally used a knife in the commission of the murder attempt and personally inflicted great bodily injury upon Molina. The court did not find the attempted murder was willful, deliberate and premeditated.

DISCUSSION

1. Appellant's waiver was not coerced.

After a full day of testimony by prosecution witnesses, appellant waived a jury for the balance of the trial. The waiver resulted from the following discussion:

â€