legal news

Home |  Link Directory |  Forum |  Gallery |  Cases |  CA Discovery Law

Register | Forgot Password
Search Members New Articles
  1. Fear Not Law Articles
  2. CA Unpub Decisions
  3. P. v. Besenty
  4. Comments on P. v. Besenty

P. v. Besenty
The jury found defendants and appellants Francisco Ramon Lozano and Nancy Marie Besenty guilty in count 1 of the murder of Yesenia Quintanilla (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a))[1] and in count 2 of the attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder of Carlos Quintanilla (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)). The jury found true as to both counts that the crimes were committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in association with a criminal street gang with the specific intent to promote, further, and assist in criminal conduct by gang members (§ 186.22, subds. (b)(5), (b)(1)(C)). As to Lozano, the jury found that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, causing great bodily injury and death (§ 12022.53, subds. (d), (e)(1) (counts 1 and 2)). The trial court found that Lozano served two prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b).[2]
The trial court sentenced defendants to 50 years to life in prison on count 1, comprised of 25 years to life for murder and 25 years to life for the firearm use. As to count 2, defendants were sentenced to life in prison, plus a consecutive 25 years to life for firearm use. As to Lozano, the court additionally imposed two one-year prison terms for the priors under section 667.5, subdivision (b).
Besenty contends on appeal that her convictions must be reversed because they are based on uncorroborated accomplice testimony. Alternately, she argues that even taking the accomplice testimony into consideration, there is insufficient evidence to support her convictions on an aiding and abetting theory. Besenty additionally contends that the trial court’s refusal to strike expert witness testimony violated her right to due process. Finally, she alleges prosecutorial misconduct and argues she was prejudiced by the cumulative errors at trial. Appointed counsel for Lozano filed an opening brief raising no issues but requesting this court to independently review the record for arguable contentions pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We address the issues raised by Besenty, in addition to undertaking a review of the record with respect to Lozano’s convictions, as required by Wende. We affirm both judgments.

Post Reply
Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale