People v. Vargas (2001)

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EDWARD VARGAS, Defendant and Appellant.

[Modification of opinion (91 Cal.App.4th 506) on denial of petition for rehearing with no change in judgment.]

PREMO, Acting P.J.-

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on August 6, 2001, be modified in the following particulars:

1. On page 57, in the eighth sentence of the third full paragraph [91 Cal. App. 4th 563, advance report, line 7] add the words "Defendant argues" [92 Cal. App. 4th 15h] to the sentence beginning "The inclusion of Urango and Esparza . . . " The sentence will now read:

"Defendant argues the inclusion of Urango and Esparza . . . "

2. On page 57, in the first sentence of the fourth full paragraph [91 Cal. App. 4th 563, advance report, 1st par., line 2] add the words "target crimes that is" right before "specific crimes that constitute . . . " The sentence will now read:

"In our discussion on the requirement of jury unanimity, we concluded that the target crimes, that is specific crimes that constitute . . .

3. On page 57, in the last sentence at the bottom of the page [91 Cal. App. 4th 563, advance report, 1st par., lines 4-7], the words "reference to," "and," "such" are deleted. The words "incident," "the prosecutor's," will be added. The sentence will now read:

"Because the Urango/Esparza incident was not an element of the charged conspiracy, the prosecutor's reference added nothing to what the jury needed to reach a finding of conspiracy."

4. On page 58, the first full paragraph [91 Cal. App. 4th 563, advance report, 2d par.] is deleted. The paragraph starts with "Moreover, the jury found defendant . . . "

There is no change in judgment. Appellant's petition for rehearing is denied.

Bamattre-Manoukian, J., concurred.