Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People v. Lamont Alvin Houze Ii

March 22, 2011

THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
LAMONT ALVIN HOUZE II, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.



(Super. Ct. No. 09F02861)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robie , J.

P. v. Houze CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

Following a jury trial, defendant Lamont Alvin Houze II was convicted of stalking. He was sentenced to two years in prison.

On appeal, defendant contends it was an abuse of discretion to admit uncharged prior crimes evidence, the court committed instructional error on the prior crimes evidence, and there was insufficient evidence to support his stalking conviction. We shall modify the award of custody credits and affirm the judgment as modified.

FACTS

Eva Gomez lived in her Sacramento home with her husband, Julio Marin (Julio), their children, and Marin's sister, Odilia Marin (Odilia).*fn1 Starting in March 2009, defendant stood across the street from their home and stared at Gomez as she took her three children to school each morning. Defendant also stared at Gomez when she returned home in the afternoon.

Julio and Odilia also saw defendant stare at their house every day. According to Julio, defendant was across the street from their house two to three times a day. He would stare at their house, look elsewhere, look back at the house, and then repeat the process. Julio and Gomez's 10-year-old son C. M. saw defendant across the street from their house more than 30 times.

In March 2009, defendant confronted Gomez while she was leaving a local grocery store. Defendant, who was about three feet from Gomez, talked to her as she hurriedly tried to enter her car. Gomez told defendant she did not understand him and she was married. Defendant replied that he knew she was married and she should get divorced.

There was a second confrontation at the store in April 2009. When Gomez arrived at the store, defendant was at the foot of her car. Gomez closed her windows and pretended not to see him. When defendant knocked on her window, Gomez took out her cell phone and told him she was calling the police. Defendant then walked away quickly.

In April 2009, defendant crossed the street and got in front of Gomez's car as she was driving home with her three children. Defendant appeared to have intentionally stepped out in front of her car; Gomez drove around him.

According to Gomez, whenever she opened the blinds, defendant would be across the street staring at her house. She had been scared of defendant since he first confronted her in the store parking lot.

Defendant twice confronted Odilia at her truck and told her to talk to Gomez. Defendant told Odilia that he loved Gomez, would protect her, and would support her children and her family in Mexico. Odilia told this to Gomez.

Julio related three incidents where defendant crossed the street and approached Gomez as she opened the garage door. Julio once confronted defendant, telling him to stop or he would have trouble. Defendant asked with whom would he have trouble, and Julio replied, the police. Defendant's behavior did not change after Julio threatened to call the police.

On April 16, 2009, Odilia noticed there was a note on her truck. Odilia took the note; defendant quickly approached, asked if she had seen the note, and told Odilia she should take it to Gomez. Gomez was in the garage and saw defendant talking to Odilia. She called for Julio, who went out to confront defendant.

Julio went out to Odilia's car and read the note. He then confronted defendant. Julio told defendant he would get a screwdriver; defendant replied that he would get a knife. Defendant threw a punch at Julio, who ran off to get his screwdriver.

Odilia called 911 and later flagged down officers responding to the dispatch. The officers observed defendant was highly agitated, aggressive, and refused to comply with ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.