P. v. Pereyda
The jury found defendants Victor Ledesma and Ramon Pereyda guilty in count one of attempted, willful, deliberate, premeditated murder (Pen. Code, 664 & 187, subd. (a))[1]and in count five of assault with a firearm on a peace officer ( 245, subd. (d)(1)), both offenses committed upon Officer Michael Fernandez. The jury also found Pereyda guilty in count three of evading an officer (Veh. Code, 2800.2, subd. (a)(5)). As to counts one and five, the jury found true the allegation that Ledesma and Pereyda personally discharged a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (c). As to all counts, the jury found true the allegation that the offenses were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang with the specific intent to promote criminal conduct by gang members, pursuant to section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C). The trial court found that Pereyda had suffered one prior felony strike conviction within the meaning of sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i), and 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d).
In this timely appeal, Ledesma contends his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation and cross-examination was violated by the admission of David Mojicas preliminary hearing testimony and the trial court prejudicially erred in admitting Mojicas statements to the police in violation of the hearsay rule. Pereyda contends his consecutive sentences were an abuse of discretion and counsel provided ineffective representation for failing to object to consecutive sentences. Pereyda joins all arguments raised by Ledesma that are applicable to him. Court conclude Ledesma forfeited his Sixth Amendment contention regarding admission of Mojicas preliminary hearing testimony by failure to object on that ground in the trial court, and any error in admitting Mojicas statements to the police was not prejudicial. Pereydas consecutive sentences were not an abuse of discretion and counsel did not provide ineffective representation. Court affirm the judgments.
Comments on P. v. Pereyda