P. v. Molinari
Defendant Salvador Molinari appeals from the judgment entered after a jury trial. The jury found defendant guilty of continuous sexual abuse of a child (Pen. Code,[1] 288.5, subd. (a); count 1); sending harmful matter to a minor ( 288.2, subd. (a); count 2); lewd act upon a child ( 288, subd. (a); counts 4, 12); oral copulation of a person under 14 years of age ( 288a, subd. (c)(1); count 5); sodomy of a person under 14 years age with 10 years age difference ( 286, subd. (c)(1); count 6); oral copulation of a person under 16 ( 288a, subd. (b)(2); count 7); sodomy of a person under the age of 16 ( 286, subd. (b)(2); count 8); and dissuading a witness from reporting a crime ( 136.1, subd. (b)(1); count 10).[2] The trial court found true the allegations that defendant suffered three prior felony convictions within the meaning of the Three Strikes law ( 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12), specifically a 1989 conviction for voluntary manslaughter and 1993 convictions for robbery and assault with a firearm. Prior to sentencing, defendant asked the court to exercise its discretion under section 1385 to strike his prior 1989 conviction for voluntary manslaughter. The trial court denied defendants request, and thereafter sentenced him to state prison for a total term of 248 years to life.
On appeal, defendant contends (1) the trial courts denial of his pretrial request for self-representation was a violation of his federal constitutional right to self-representation and is reversible per se; (2) the sex offense instructions were impermissible argumentative; (3) the trial court committed judicial misconduct in admonishing defendant in the presence of the jury; (4) the imposition of consecutive terms violated his constitutional rights to a jury trial and to due process under Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403] and Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 [127 S.Ct. 856, 166 L.Ed.2d 856]; and (5) the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to dismiss one of his prior strike convictions. Court affirm.
Comments on P. v. Molinari