Fear Not Law Articles: P. v. Etchegoin

P. v. Etchegoin

Filed 1/16/07 P. v. Etchegoin 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

(Butte)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

PERRY ANDRE ETCHEGOIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

C047662

(Super. Ct. No. CM018789)

Defendant Perry Andre Etchegoin was convicted of being an accessory to a felon's possession of a firearm and contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and placed on probation.^{^[1]} He argues: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain the delinquency conviction; (2) the court erroneously instructed the jury that it could draw an unfavorable inference from his failure to deny or explain facts within his knowledge; and (3) his trial counsel ineffectively failed to request an instruction that defendant's voluntary intoxication could negate the specific intent required for the firearm offense. Since the evidence was sufficient, any instructional error was harmless, and defendant has not established that trial counsel was ineffective, we affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Delinquency Offense

Defendant grew up in Gridley, California, and settled nearby, eventually gaining employment as a deputy sheriff of the Sutter County Sheriff's Department. During the period when the offenses were committed, defendant and his wife were separated, with defendant remaining at the marital residence with their two children, a 15-year-old girl and a 17-year-old boy.

Defendant's marital difficulties escalated two days before Christmas in 2002, when his wife fired a gun outside the marital residence. In response, defendant's daughter asked if she could stay at the residence of Roy Anguiano, an unmarried, 46-year-old male who was the older brother of one of defendant's high school classmates. Defendant consented to his daughter's request, even though he had heard rumors that Anguiano supplied drugs to defendant's wife and may have had an affair with her. Defendant's daughter knew Anguiano because she had cleaned his house on occasion and was kenneling a dog there.

Over the Christmas holidays, defendant's daughter told him that she and Anguiano had engaged in sexual intercourse on multiple occasions. Defendant telephoned Anguiano and said, â€

Description	Defendant was convicted of being an accessory to a felon's possession of a firearm and contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and placed on probation. Defendant argues: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain the delinquency conviction; (2) the court erroneously instructed the jury that it could draw an unfavorable inference from his failure to deny or explain facts within his knowledge; and (3) his trial counsel ineffectively failed to request an instruction that defendant's voluntary intoxication could negate the specific intent required for the firearm offense. Since the evidence was sufficient, any instructional error was harmless, and defendant has not established that trial counsel was ineffective, court affirm the judgment.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.