Court Opinion

ID: 9881728
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-03 18:18:37.239134+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:14:22.017315
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/3/23 P. v. Misirli CA2/4
         NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

                            SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                        DIVISION FOUR

 THE PEOPLE,                                                   B315759

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                           (Los Angeles County
                                                               Super. Ct. No. MA076224)
           v.

 JONATHAN PAUL MISIRLI,

           Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Daviann L. Mitchell, Judge. Affirmed.
      Jeralyn B. Keller, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant
Attorney General, Amanda V. Lopez and J. Michael Lehmann,
Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                          INTRODUCTION
       Appellant Jonathan Paul Misirli was convicted of three
counts of murder and other charges; he was sentenced to multiple
life terms. On appeal, Misirli raises a single contention: that the
trial court erred in ordering him restrained during the jury trial.
However, he has failed to point to any such order in the record.
Misirli therefore has not demonstrated any error. We affirm.
        FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
        The facts of the case are not relevant to the substance of
Misirli’s appeal, so we do not recount them in detail. On January
16, 2019, Olukayode Owolabi, Sean Cowen, and David Licona-
Hernandez were shot and killed. D.T.1 was also shot in the face
and was severely injured; items were stolen from D.T. A nine-day
jury trial was conducted in September 2021.
       On the seventh day of trial, after the prosecution rested
and as defense counsel, Kristoffer McFarren, was preparing to
present the defense case, McFarren told the court that Misirli
intended to testify. McFarren asked the court to permit Misirli to
testify without a bailiff or other law enforcement personnel near
him, suggesting use of a “stealth belt or some other restraint”
instead. The court declined, observing that the charges against
Misirli involved significant violence, and stating that the court
was not equipped with a chair with a stealth belt. The court
offered to admonish the jury “not to take anything from the fact
that there’s a bailiff up there, . . . or I can be silent about it,
whatever you prefer.” The court also noted, “We’ll excuse the
jury when we put him up there anyway.” McFarren asked
whether the court would be “willing to state [that] whenever a

1     We refer to the living victim using initials to protect his
privacy. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.90(b)(4).)

                                  2
criminal defendant takes the stand, this is normal.” The court
agreed, remarking, “They don’t need to know whether it’s
truthful or not,” and stating, “I’m more than happy to say it’s a
policy of this court” that having a bailiff nearby is “something we
do in all criminal cases.” The following colloquy then occurred:
      “Mr. McFarren: Yes. And could the court also
      add that he’s not permitted to stand during the –
      “The court: I can. Sure.
      “Mr. McFarren: Otherwise, I have to ask him
      about it because it seems – it’s [sic] the only one
      not standing.
      “The court: I’m happy to tell them.
      “Mr. McFarren: Thank you.
      “The court: You want to do that right away?
      “Mr. McFarren: When he gets up there, can you
      explain that?
      “The court: Of course. No problem.”
       Later that day, after the first defense witness testified and
was excused, the court asked the jury to step out of the
courtroom. Out of the presence of the jury, defendant took the
witness stand. When the jury returned, the court said to the
jury, “Mr. Misirli is now on the witness stand. I just want to
advise you of two things. There’s times when we come in at the
beginning of each day – this is what I do in my courtroom – is we
all rise to face the flag. You may or may not have noticed that Mr.
Misirli did not. That was not his choice. That was my choice. I
always ask in a criminal case – regardless if it’s a minor theft or a
minor drug case up to the kind of case we have now, I have all my
defendants accused remain seated at counsel table; so that was
not his choice. He would have stood if he could have, but I asked

                                 3
him to remain seated. Secondly, the same thing that I do in all of
my cases is when someone’s been accused of any crime regardless
of the nature or the severity, I have them, if they choose to take
the stand, have a bailiff in and around that general area. It’s just
something I personally do. It has nothing to do with him or
anything about this case.”
        Following the presentation of evidence, the jury convicted
Misirli of three counts of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187,
subd. (a)2), and found true allegations that Misirli committed
multiple murders (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3)), committed the murders
during a robbery (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(A)), killed the victims by
lying in wait (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(15)), and personally used and
discharged a firearm causing death (§12022.53, subds. (b), (c),
and (d)). The jury also convicted Misirli of one count of attempted
murder (§§ 187, subd. (a); 664, subd. (a)), and found true
allegations that Misirli acted with premeditation (§ 664, subd.
(a)), inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)), and
personally used and discharged a firearm causing great bodily
injury (§12022.53, subds. (b), (c), and (d)). Finally, the jury
convicted Misirli of one count of second degree robbery (§ 211),
and found true an allegation that Misirli personally used and
discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53,
subds. (b), (c), and (d)). The court sentenced Misirli to three
terms of life without the possibility of parole for the murders, life
with the possibility of parole on the attempted murder, 3 years
plus 100 years to life on firearm enhancements, and a stayed
term of five years for the robbery conviction.
        Misirli timely appealed.

2     All further statutory references are to the Penal Code
unless otherwise indicated.

                                 4
                            DISCUSSION
       Misirli’s opening brief includes a 45-page recitation of the
evidence presented at trial, but does not include any facts
suggesting that Misirli was physically restrained during trial.
He nevertheless argues that the court erred in ordering Misirli
“so closely restrained, he could not even stand,” and that
“restraining Misirli in front of the jury was error.”3 He asserts
that “[h]is restraints singled him out” in the courtroom, and “a
restrained defendant no longer has the aura of innocence.”
Misirli further argues that “the court failed to make any record
justifying restraining Misirli’s movement in the courtroom.”
       The Attorney General responds that Misirli has forfeited
his argument because he failed to support his claim of error with
any relevant citations to the record. The Attorney General notes
that “a review of the record fails to indicate that [Misirli] was
shackled at any point in the trial.” In his reply brief, Misirli
clarifies, “[T]he court’s order [that Misirli] remain seated at all
times during the trial was a physical restraint that restricted his
movement.” Misirli relies on a single page of the record for his
argument—the transcript page in which the court told the jurors
that Misirli was required to remain seated.
       We agree with the Attorney General that Misirli’s
contention has been forfeited. Misirli argues the court erred by
ordering him restrained, but he points to no such order. Indeed,
the record does not reveal if Misirli remained seated during the
trial due to a court order, physical restraints, disability, or some
other cause. The sole evidence Misirli cites is the statement in
which the court told the jury that Misirli was “not permitted to

3     Misirli asserts no claim of error regarding the presence of
the bailiff while he was testifying.

                                 5
stand.” However, the actual reason Misirli did not stand is not
revealed in the record. In the discussion preceding the court’s
statement to the jury, the court agreed to attribute the bailiff’s
presence to court policy, stating that the jury did not “need to
know whether it’s truthful or not.” It is unclear if the same
approach was employed regarding Misirli remaining seated—
whether this was due to actual court policy or if the court simply
stated so to avoid drawing attention to some other, unstated
cause.
      It is the appellant’s burden to affirmatively demonstrate
error. (People v. Gonzalez (2021) 12 Cal.5th 367, 410.) An
appellant is required to “[s]upport any reference to a matter in
the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the
record where the matter appears.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
8.204(a)(1)(C).) Misirli has not done so here; there is no court
ruling Misirli alleges was erroneous nor is there record evidence
supporting his claim of error. Misirli’s argument has therefore
been forfeited.4

4     In addition, it is well settled that “the use of physical
restraints in the trial court cannot be challenged for the first time
on appeal,” so the “failure to object and make a record below
waives the claim” on appeal. (People v. Tuilaepa (1992) 4 Cal.4th
569, 583; see also People v. Ward (2005) 36 Cal.4th 186, 206.) No
such objection was made below.

                                 6
                       DISPOSITION
     The judgment is affirmed.

  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                      COLLINS, J.

We concur:

CURREY, P.J.

ZUKIN, J.

                          7