California v. Vizcarra
Annotate this CaseDefendant Juan Vizcarra appealed the sentence he received following a prior appeal. Vizcarra, whose Chicali gang moniker was "Shorty," stabbed a man affiliated with a rival street gang twice in the ribs with a knife, causing him to suffer a collapsed lung. The victim was hospitalized for about two weeks. At the time of the assault, Vizcarra was accompanied by Jeffrey Ruiz, whose Chicali gang moniker was "Speedy" and who testified at trial that he saw Vizcarra stab the victim. Vizcarra was convicted by jury of assaulting his victim with a deadly weapon, and for attempting to dissuade a witness. The jury found Vizcarra not guilty of attempting to willfully, deliberately and with premeditation, murder the victim. In addition, the jury found to be true a count 2 allegation that Vizcarra committed the assault with a deadly weapon for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang. The court originally sentenced Vizcarra in this case to an aggregate prison term of 15 years consisting of (1) the upper term of four years for his count 2 conviction of assault with a deadly weapon, doubled to eight years under the Three Strikes law as a result of the court's true finding on the count 2 strike prior allegation; plus (2) a consecutive term of two years for his count 3 conviction of attempting to dissuade a victim or witness, which the court did not double under the Three Strikes law; plus (3) a consecutive five-year term for the gang enhancement. Upon review, the Court of Appeal found that the trial court erred in memorializing Vizcarra's correct sentences for his convictions. The Court affirmed Vizcarra's convictions, but remanded the case with directions that the trial court prepare a corrected abstract of judgment to reflect that: (1) Vizcarra was sentenced to a prison term of eight years for his count 2 conviction; and (2) he was sentenced to a consecutive prison term of four years for his count 3 conviction.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.