California v. BonillaAnnotate this Case
Defendants Sandra Bonilla, Guillermo Bonilla Chirinos, and Juan Bonilla Chirinos appealed after juries found each of them guilty of felony vandalism. Defendants argued they received ineffective assistance of counsel because their trial counsel: (1) failed to raise Commercial Code section 9609 and other statutes as a defense to the vandalism charge; (2) failed to clarify the vandalism jury instruction after the jury asked which items were part of the charge; and (3) should have introduced Guillermo’s telephone records to support Guillermo’s credibility at trial. In addition, they argued the trial court abused its discretion by denying their: (1) request for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence; and (2) motion requesting the trial court reduce their felony convictions to misdemeanors and not impose custody time. Finding no merit in these contentions, the Court of Appeal affirmed their convictions.