P. v. Escbedo
Defendant Manuel Escobedo was convicted of two counts of attempted murder, one count of shooting at an occupied vehicle, two counts of possession of marijuana for sale, and one count of sale or transportation of marijuana. A jury also made true findings on two firearm enhancements.
Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for the attempted murder convictions, arguing there was insufficient evidence he was the shooter. In addition to the identification by the victim eyewitness, there was significant circumstantial evidence identifying defendant as the shooter. Although defendant argues the victim eyewitnesss testimony was not reasonable, credible, or reliable, the weight to give that testimony was a question for the jury, not for this appellate court, to decide.
Defendant also challenges the trial courts imposition of consecutive sentences, arguing his constitutional rights to due process and a jury trial were violated when the trial court made findings that were not proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The imposition of a consecutive rather than a concurrent sentence, however, does not violate the rule against imposition of an upper term sentence based on facts not found by a jury, as set forth in Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 (Blakely) and Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. [127 S.Ct. 856] (Cunningham). Therefore, Court reject defendants challenge to his sentence, and affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Escbedo