P. v. Rocha
Defendant Miguel Fernandez Rocha was convicted of receiving stolen property and burglarizing four vehicles. On appeal, he contends (1) the trial court erred by admitting evidence of defendants prior uncharged acts, (2) insufficient evidence supported one of the burglary convictions, (3) testimony that officers responded to a suspicious vehicle call was hearsay and irrelevant, (4) the trial court erred by failing to instruct on unanimity, (5) the trial court erred by failing to instruct on expert testimony, (6) these errors were cumulatively prejudicial and (7) the trial court abused its discretion by denying probation. Court affirm.
Comments on P. v. Rocha