Fear Not Law Articles: P. v. Ortega

P. v. Ortega

Filed 1/31/07 P. v. Ortega CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

CARLOS IVAN ORTEGA,

Defendant and Appellant.

G036839

(Super. Ct. No. 159577POF)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Patrick Donahue, Judge. Affirmed.

Patrick Morgan Ford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Lilia E. Garcia and Stephanie H. Chow, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

Introduction

A jury found Carlos Ivan Ortega guilty of one count of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)), one count of first degree burglary (id., §§ 459, 460, subd. (a)), and one count of first degree robbery (id., §§ 211, 212.5). The trial court sentenced Ortega to a prison term of 25 years to life for the murder conviction, and stayed imposition of sentence on the other counts pursuant to Penal Code section 654.

Ortega challenges his conviction on one ground: He contends the â€

Description	A jury found Carlos Ivan Ortega guilty of one count of first degree murder (Pen. Code, S 187, subd. (a)), one count of first degree burglary (id., SS 459, 460, subd. (a)), and one count of first degree robbery (id., SS 211, 212.5). The trial court sentenced Ortega to a prison term of 25 years to life for the murder conviction, and stayed imposition of sentence on the other counts pursuant to Penal Code section 654. Defendant challenges his conviction on one ground: He contends the "six pack" photographic lineup, from which three witnesses identified him soon after the crime, was impermissibly suggestive because his photograph's background was lighter and of a different color than the others. Court have carefully examined the photographic lineup, received in evidence as exhibit 49, and conclude the lineup was not impermissibly suggestive. In addition, court conclude the identification was reliable under the totality of the circumstances. Court therefore affirm the judgment.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.