P. v. Lopez
Defendant Steven John Lopez III was convicted by jury of unlawful taking or driving of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), possession of burglary tools (Pen. Code, § 466), and driving with a suspended license (Veh. Code, § 14601.1, subd. (a)). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true allegations defendant was convicted of unlawful taking or driving of a vehicle on two prior occasions (Pen. Code, § 666.5, subd. (a)) and he had served three prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced defendant to serve an aggregate term of six years in the county jail under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h), with execution of the concluding two years suspended, during which defendant shall be subject to mandatory supervision, and imposed other orders.
Defendant raises one contention on appeal. He claims the trial court prejudicially erred and violated his constitutional rights by admitting evidence he was previously convicted of unlawful taking or driving of a vehicle, offered by the prosecution to prove his intent to permanently or temporarily deprive the vehicle’s owner of title or possession and to negate defendant’s statement to police that he believed the car belonged to his girlfriend. We conclude the challenged evidence was admissible under Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b). [1] Nor did the trial court abuse its discretion in concluding, under section 352, the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice. In light of these conclusions, we also conclude defendant’s federal constitutional rights were not violated by admission of the challenged evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Lopez