P. v. Varelas
A jury convicted defendant Jose Luis Varelas of two counts of felony infliction of corporal injury on the mother of his child (Pen. Code 273.5, subds. (a) & (e)), two counts of misdemeanor false imprisonment ( 236, 237), and one misdemeanor count of violating a protective order ( 273.6, subd. (a)) arising out of events that occurred on separate occasions in October 2003 and October 2004. The jury also found true enhancement allegations that defendant had a prior conviction for domestic violence when he committed the 2003 offense and that he was on bail when he committed the 2004 offenses. The jury acquitted defendant of one count of assault with a deadly weapon (a hammer, 245, subd. (a)(1)) arising out of the 2003 incident and two counts of making criminal threats ( 422). In a bifurcated proceeding, the court found true enhancement allegations that defendant had two prior convictions within the meaning of the Three Strikes law ( 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12).
The court denied defendants motion for new trial and his Romero[2] motion. The court sentenced defendant to 25 years to life on both of the infliction of corporal injury counts, for a total term of 50 years to life. The court also sentenced defendant to 90 days in jail on each of the misdemeanor false imprisonment and violation of a protective order counts, to run concurrent with each other and the other sentences imposed in the case. The court stayed punishment for the on-bail enhancement ( 12022.1, subd. (d)).
On appeal, defendant contends the court erred when it refused to dismiss Juror No. 10, when it permitted the prosecution to introduce expert evidence regarding battered womens syndrome, when it denied defendants request to present evidence regarding the victims psychiatric problems, when it denied defendants motion for new trial, when it failed to strike one or both of his prior strike convictions, and when it failed to dismiss rather than stay the on-bail enhancement ( 12022.1). He also claims his counsel was ineffective when he failed to challenge venue on counts 6, 7, and 8. Court find no error and affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Varelas