P. v. Cruz
Defendant was convicted of first degree burglary (count 1; Pen. Code, 459, 460, subd. (a); all further statutory references are to this code unless otherwise specified) and two counts of first degree robbery while acting in concert with two or more others (counts 2 and 3; 211, 212.5, subd. (a), 213, subd. (a)(1)(A)). The jury found true that he was vicariously armed ( 12022, subd. (a)(1)); the court found true a prior strike conviction ( 667, subds. (a)(1), (d) & (e), 1170.12, subd. (b)) and a prior prison term allegation ( 667.5, subd. (b)).
On appeal, defendant claims the evidence is insufficient. He also argues the court erred in denying a motion to exclude a witnesss identification of his car, admitting a statement made before he received a Miranda warning (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694]), and refusing to give a jury instruction that the prosecution had not timely disclosed evidence. He additionally maintains his counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge a seated juror. Finding none of these claims meritorious, Court affirm.
Comments on P. v. Cruz