P. v. Cruz
Defendant was charged by information with burglary (Pen. Code, 459-460, subd. (a) [count 1]), forcible lewd acts on a child during the commission of a burglary [count 2] and kidnapping ( 288, subd. (b)(1), 667.61, subds. (a)-(e) [counts 9 and 10] ), kidnapping a child under the age of 14 ( 207, subd. (a)/208, subd. (b) [count 3]), two counts of felonious assault, one of them with use of a deadly weapon ( 245, subd. (a)(1), 12022, subd. (b)(1) [counts 4 and 5]), child abuse with the use of a deadly weapon ( 273a, subd. (a), 12022, subd. (b)(1) [count 6]) and forcible sexual penetration during the commission of a kidnapping, one of them with personal use of a deadly weapon ( 289, subd. (a)(1), 667.61, subds. (a), (b), (d), (e), 12022.3, subd. (a) [counts 7 and 8]).
After a doubt was declared as to defendants competency to stand trial, a jury found defendant competent. Defendant subsequently pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. A jury found defendant guilty as charged and sane. The trial court sentenced defendant to 90 years to life, consecutive to a determinate term of 12 years, four months.
On appeal defendant argues that the court: (1) misinstructed the jury in its definition of competency, and then failed to correct the error in response to a jury question; (2) erroneously ruled that defendants implied Miranda waiver and statements were voluntary and intelligent; (3) misinstructed the jury on his idiocy defense; (4) misinstructed the jury on his duress defense; (5) erred by failing to admonish the jury to disregard the prosecutors comments during his rebuttal argument; (6) misinstructed the jury on his insanity defense; (7) improperly sentenced defendant to consecutive terms under the One Strike law; (8) improperly used kidnapping as an aggravating circumstance to impose separate sentences for three sex offenses; and (9) and improperly imposed a sentence of 25 years to life instead of 15 years to life under the One Strike law. He also argues that the errors committed at the guilt trial cumulatively require reversal. Court affirm.
Comments on P. v. Cruz