P. v. Matamoros
Based upon incidents that occurred within a three-week period at eight different commercial establishments, a jury convicted defendant Jose Matamoros of seven counts of robbery and one count of attempted robbery. In addition, in each of those eight incidents, defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The jury found true the enhancement allegation that defendant personally used a firearm during the robberies and attempted robbery. The court found defendant had suffered a 1997 robbery conviction charged under the Three Strikes law. The court sentenced defendant to a term of 61 years and 8 months. On this appeal, defendant attacks the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his convictions arising out of three incidents. In regard to the first incident, he argues that the evidence was insufficient because the victim only testified that defendant looked similar to the man who robbed him. In regard to the second incident, he argues that the jury should not have credited the victims out-of-court identifications of him because at trial she testified that defendant was not the robber. We find no merit to either argument and therefore affirm the convictions arising out of those two incidents. In regard to the third incident, he urges that the hearsay statements of the victim who did not testify at trial were inadmissible in light of Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36 (Crawford). We conclude that although introduction of the victims statements violated Crawford, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (See People v. Cage (2007) 40 Cal.4th 965, 984-986, 991 (Cage).)
Court conclude, under People v. Black (2007) 41 Cal.4th 799 (Black II), that there was no Sixth Amendment error.
Comments on P. v. Matamoros