P. v. Pineda
Defendants Joseph Peter Pineda, Solina Sandra Gonzales and Johnny Montano appeal their convictions and sentences after a jury convicted them of robbery, carjacking, kidnapping and murder. The defendants contend (1) that the trial court erred in instructing the jury with respect to CALCRIM No. 540B, the felony murder instruction, by using improper formatting that allowed the jury to convict the defendants of felony murder based solely on a finding that the defendants either committed, aided and abetted, intended to commit or intended to aid and abet a robbery, carjacking, or kidnapping; (2) that the trial court erred in including the crimes of torture and murder when instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 376, which tells the jury how it may use evidence that a defendant possessed stolen property; (3) that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the crime of assault, as a lesser included offense of robbery; (4) that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that the prosecutor did not have to prove motive, because some of the charged offenses required a showing that the defendants had a particular purpose in carrying out the crime; (5) that the court erred in not staying the imposition of sentence for the offense of torture pursuant to Penal Code[1] section 654, since the murder and torture were part of a single course of conduct; (6) that the court erred in denying the defendants' motions to sever their trials from that trial of a fourth codefendant whom the jury eventually acquitted; (7) that the trial court erroneously instructed the jury with respect to the "one continuous transaction rule" as it applies to felony murder; (8) that there is insufficient evidence to support their convictions for murder based on felony murder because there is insufficient evidence that the torture and murder were part of one continuous transaction; (9) that there is insufficient evidence to support the convictions for carjacking as to two of the three victims; (10) that the prosecutor committed misconduct in at least two ways; and (11) that the cumulative effect of the identified errors requires reversal.
Comments on P. v. Pineda