P. v. Barno
In November 2004 a jury convicted Rodney Bernard Barno (Barno) of stalking (Pen. Code,[1] 646.9, subd. (a); count 1); stalking in violation of a restraining order ( 646.9, subd. (b); count 2); seven counts of making criminal threats ( 422; counts 3, 4, 6-10); vandalism causing damage exceeding $400 ( 594, subd. (a)(b)(1); count 11); six counts of vandalism causing damage less than $400, a misdemeanor ( 594, subd. (a)(b)(2)(A); counts 5, 11-16), and two counts of making harassing telephone calls, a misdemeanor ( 653m, subd. (a)). Barno admitted he had suffered three prior strike juvenile adjudications, two for assault with a deadly weapon ( 245, subd. (a)) and one for discharging a firearm in a grossly negligent manner ( 246). On appeal Barno asserts (1) the jury was improperly instructed on its use of evidence of his prior acts of domestic violence; (2) the court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of his past acts of domestic violence; (3) the court erred by allowing the People to prove the damage caused by his vandalism to a car with an invoice showing the cost of repair; (4) the court erred in not giving, sua sponte, a unanimity instruction on the facts supporting counts 6, 9 and 10; (5) there is insufficient evidence to support the criminal threat convictions in counts 3, 6 and 7; (6) the court erred by not instructing, sua sponte, on principles of accomplice liability; (7) the court erred in failing to instruct the jury that a prosecution witness was an accomplice as to count 11; (8) he was provided ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to argue that the court could not use his prior juvenile adjudications as strikes; (9) the court abused its discretion in failing to strike his prior juvenile adjudications; and (10) the cumulative effect of the errors rendering the proceedings fundamentally unfair. In a supplemental opening brief Barno asserts that (1) the court should have also given a unanimity instruction on count 3, and (2) use of his prior juvenile adjudications as strikes violated the federal Constitution. Court affirm.
Comments on P. v. Barno