P. v. Martone CA2/4
Defendant John Anthony Martone appeals from a judgment sentencing him to six years in state prison after a jury found him guilty on two counts of first degree burglary. (Pen. Code, § 459.) He contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress pretrial identifications that he asserts were the result of impermissibly suggestive identification procedures. He also contends the trial court erred in denying his section 1118.1 motion on the ground that substantial evidence did not support the charges against him. We conclude that the identification procedures used were not impermissibly suggestive under the circumstances, and that there was sufficient evidence to support an inference that defendant intended to commit larceny when he entered the victims’ homes. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Martone CA2/4