Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. OSCAR MEDINA, Defendant and Appellant.

CHANEY, J.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. LA089772, Gregory A. Dohi, Judge. Affirmed.

Helen Hoeffel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, William H. Shin and Roberta L. Davis, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

CHANEY, J.

A jury convicted Oscar Medina of second degree robbery and assault with a firearm on January 24, 2020 based on an incident involving two victims on December 30, 2018. On appeal, Medina's only argument is that the trial court violated his federal and state due process rights when it instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 315 that it could consider an eyewitness's level of certainty in evaluating the reliability of the witness's identification of the defendant.

When Medina filed his opening brief here, People v. Lemcke (2021) 11 Cal.5th 644 (Lemcke), in which our Supreme Court was considering the same contention in the context of another defendant's case, had not yet been decided. Medina explained in his opening brief that he had “raise[d] this challenge to preserve it should the Supreme Court... agree that certainty should not be a factor in evaluating eyewitness identification evidence and that such instruction is error and violates a defendant's due process rights.” The Supreme Court issued its opinion in Lemcke on May 27, 2021, rejecting the contentions Medina makes here. Based on Lemcke, we will affirm the trial court's judgment.

BACKGROUND

Just after 1:00 a.m. on December 30, 2018, an individual that the victims identified as Medina confronted Marco Delgado and Maria Franco as they walked to Franco's car. Delgado and Franco testified that Medina ran toward them and with a weapon in his hand, which Delgado and Franco believed to be a pistol, repeatedly demanded Franco's purse. Delgado and Franco each testified that Medina threatened to shoot if Franco didn't surrender her purse. (Delgado estimated that Medina was 10 to 11 feet from the pair when he demanded Franco's purse; Franco estimated he was six to seven feet away.) Franco gave the assailant her wallet and he approached the pair and took the wallet from her hand. As he fled, the pair memorized the license plate of the car the assailant drove away from the scene. Delgado wrote down the license plate number as the pair drove to the police station after the incident. The license plate number corresponded to a vehicle Medina rented on December 26, 2018 and was scheduled to return on December 31, 2018.

Delgado and Franco each testified that they saw the assailant clearly. They each identified Medina as their assailant, both from a photographic lineup the day after the attack and in open court during Medina's trial. Delgado and Franco each testified that they were certain that the person they identified-Medina-was the person who had robbed them.

The People charged Medina by information with second degree robbery against Franco (Pen. Code, § 211),

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

People v. Medina
(Aug 2, 2021)