P. v. Munoz
Appellant Ramiro Munoz challenges his convictions and sentences for murder and shooting into an occupied motor vehicle. He argues that the court erred in giving incomplete accomplice jury instructions and by instructing with CALJIC No. 2.11.5. In addition, he argues that his murder conviction and weapons enhancement convictions violate the multiple convictions rule and double jeopardy principles. He also complains the court erred in sentencing him to a 10 year term of imprisonment for the gang enhancement. Only the claim of sentencing error has merit. As we shall explain, the testimony of the purported accomplice was sufficiently corroborated, and thus, Munoz suffered no prejudice as a result of any error in instructing the jury concerning accomplice issues. Moreover, appellant has not demonstrated prejudicial error in instructing the jury with the current version of CALJIC No. 2.11.5. Furthermore, appellants double jeopardy and multiple convictions rule arguments are unsound and have been rejected by the California Supreme Court. This matter is remanded to the trial court.
Comments on P. v. Munoz