Filed 7/28/21 P. v. Duran CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, D077135 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN374383) PABLO DURAN, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Carlos O. Armour, Judge. Affirmed. Cynthia Ann Grimm, by appointment of the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson, and Michael D. Butera, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Pablo Duran admitted bludgeoning Robert Pierro to death with a hammer and fleeing the scene but claimed he did so in self-defense. A jury found Duran guilty of first degree murder and attempted carjacking, and the court sentenced him to 26 years to life plus an additional four years six months in prison. On appeal, Duran asserts the trial court improperly excluded evidence regarding the victim’s propensity to violence and improperly admitted evidence regarding his own prior felonies and uncharged misconduct. He further asserts the court failed to instruct the jury that he had no duty to retreat before defending himself, failed to instruct the jury on heat of passion voluntary manslaughter, and provided an improper instruction regarding unanimity of the verdict. Further still, he alleges the prosecutor committed misconduct during the closing argument, his own counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the cumulative nature of the asserted errors was prejudicial. We conclude each of these contentions lack merit and, to the extent there was any error, the error was harmless. Finally, Duran requests that we independently review the trial court’s decision in a sealed pretrial proceeding regarding the discoverability of certain evidence. We have done so and also find no error in that proceeding. Accordingly, we affirm the judgement. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The victim, Robert Pierro, owned a construction company and had, at times, employed Duran as a skilled laborer. On June 7, 2017, Duran went to Pierro’s personal residence. Duran and Pierro spoke in Pierro’s home office and, at some point, ended up in the garage. Another worker, Cristian C., was working outside and saw Duran emerge from the garage, wave goodbye, and leave. Shortly thereafter, 2 Cristian discovered Pierro lying on the floor of the garage, with multiple wounds to his head and face. Cristian called for help, but Pierro died before the authorities arrived. Later that evening, Duran was stopped at a checkpoint near the border, approximately 125 miles away from Pierro’s residence. When an agent attempted to divert him to a secondary inspection area, Duran sped away and led the agents on a lengthy high-speed …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals