People v. Munoz

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ISIDRO DELAROSA MUNOZ, Defendant…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division

Date published: Feb 26, 2008

No. B200911 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2008)

Opinion

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ISIDRO DELAROSA MUNOZ, Defendant and Appellant. B200911 California Court of Appeal, Second District, First Division February 26, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. NA063148, Tomson T. Ong, Judge.

David H. Goodwin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Chung L. Mar and Colleen M. Tiedemann, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

VOGEL, Acting P.J.

Isidro Delarosa Munoz was convicted of eight sex offenses committed during attacks on three victims (Sonia D., Elvira H., and Nicole G.) on three different days. (Pen. Code, §§ 209, subd. (b)(1), 261, subd. (a)(2), 288a, subd. (c)(2), 286, subd. (c)(2).)¹ The trial court sentenced him to state prison for a total term of 133 years to life, including five terms of 25 years to life under the one-strike statute, section 667.61. Munoz appealed, contending section 667.61 permitted only one enhancement per incident, and that there were only three incidents in this case. The Attorney General conceded the point, and we agreed and remanded for resentencing. (People v. Munoz (Mar. 19, 2007, B189831 [nonpub. opn.].)

1 All section references are to the Penal Code.

On remand, the trial court sentenced Munoz to a total term of 99 years to life, which includes three eight-year upper terms selected because there were multiple victims, a sentencing choice authorized by People v. Calhoun (2007) 40 Cal.4th 398, 405-408. Munoz appeals again, this time claiming Cunningham error. (Cunningham v. California (2007) ___ U.S. ___ [127 S.Ct. 856].) The claim lacks merit because the multiple victim finding was necessarily made by the jury when it convicted Munoz of multiple crimes against all three victims. (People v. Calhoun, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 406.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: ROTHSCHILD, J., JACKSON, J.^[*]

[*] Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.