Court Opinion

ID: 9913335
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-27 19:02:18.917989+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:08:33.780667
License: Public Domain

Filed 12/27/23 P. v. Anguiano CA1/4
                NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not
certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

        IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                                 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                            DIVISION FOUR

 THE PEOPLE,
          Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                A166350
 v.
 CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY                                            (Napa County Super. Ct.
 ANGUIANO,                                                      No. 21CR000719)
          Defendant and Appellant.

                                   MEMORANDUM OPINION1
        In April 2021, two brothers — Mike and Gary L. — were in a car in a
Napa liquor store parking lot driving towards the exit when Christopher
Anthony Anguiano blocked their car with his truck. Anguiano got out of his
truck, approached the brothers’ car, “pulled out a knife,” and swung it “back
and forth” in front of them.
        A jury convicted Anguiano of two counts of misdemeanor exhibiting
a deadly weapon — one for each brother (§ 417, subd. (a)(1); counts 7 &
8) — and other crimes, including felonies. Various special allegations were
either admitted or found true. The trial court imposed a prison term of four

        1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion, reciting only those

facts necessary to resolve the limited issue before us. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin.,
§ 8.1.) Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                                        1
years on the felony convictions and associated special allegations. For each of
the two convictions for exhibiting a deadly weapon, the court ordered
concurrent time served in county jail.
      On appeal, Anguiano contends — and the Attorney General
concedes — one of the convictions for exhibiting a deadly weapon should be
stricken.2 We agree. Exhibiting or brandishing “a deadly weapon in the
presence of another person is not a crime of violence ‘upon’ that person, but is
committed in someone’s presence. . . . Thus, a single act of brandishing can
only support a conviction of a single count of violation of section 417,
subdivision (a)(1), no matter how many people witness the act.” (In re Peter F.
(2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 877, 881.) Here, Anguiano committed a single
violation of exhibiting a deadly weapon when he wielded a knife in the
presence of the brothers.
                                  Disposition
      Count 8 is stricken. The trial court is directed to amend the October 7,
2022 sentencing minute order reflecting that count 8 is stricken. As modified,
the judgment is affirmed.

      2 Anguiano does not contest any aspect of this case other than the two

misdemeanor convictions for brandishing.

                                         2
                                          HIRAMOTO, J.*

WE CONCUR:

BROWN, P. J.
GOLDMAN, J.
People v. Anguiano (A166350)

       
       Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa,
assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.

                                      3