P. v. Gonzalez
This case involves defendants and appellants, Jose A. Lopez Gonzalez (Gonzalez) and his wife, Judith Mendez Lopez (Lopez). A jury found Gonzalez and Lopez (collectively “defendantsâ€) guilty of seven counts each of knowingly owning a mischievous animal that caused serious bodily injury to a human being. (Pen. Code, § 399, subd. (b).)[1] The trial court sentenced defendants to prison for terms of four years, four months.
Lopez raises six issues on appeal. First, Lopez contends there is not substantial evidence she knew her dogs were vicious. Second, Lopez asserts substantial evidence does not support two of the four convictions related to the victim Destiny, because the evidence reflects Destiny was bitten by only two dogs. Third, Lopez contends her sentences for all but one of her convictions should have been stayed pursuant to section 654. Fourth, Lopez contends the multiple convictions violate the law against double jeopardy because she committed only one negligent act. Fifth, Lopez asserts the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the knowledge element of the offense. (CALCRIM No. 2950.) Sixth, Lopez contends the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on the law of unanimity. We affirm the judgment.
Gonzalez raises three issues on appeal. First, Gonzalez asserts substantial evidence does not support the finding he knew his dogs were vicious prior to the attack. Second, Gonzalez contends the evidence does not support a finding Destiny was bitten by four dogs. Third, Gonzalez contends the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the knowledge element of the offense. (CALCRIM No. 2950.) We affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Gonzalez