Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...
Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ... Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...
CALlIC No. 8.31 passim CALJIC No. 8.84.1 30 xvii
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA rnrn PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, California Supreme rlaintiffand Respondent, Court No. S091915 vs. Los Angeles County PANIEL NUNEZ and WILLIAM TUPUA Superior Court No. SATELE NA039358 Defendants and Appellants. APPELLANT WILLIAM TUPUA SATELE'S REPLY BRIEF In this brief, appellant does not reply to those of respondent's arguments which are adequately addressed in his opening brief. The failure to address any particular argument or allegation made by respondent, or to reassert any particular point made in the opening brief, does not constitute a concession, abandonment, or waiver of the point by appellant (see People v. Hill (1992) 3 Ca1.4th 959, 995 fn. 3, cert. den. (1993) 510 U.S. 963), but rather reflects appellant's view that the issue has been adequately presented and the positions ofthe parties fully joined. The arguments in this reply are numbered to correspond to the argument numbers in Appellant Satele's Opening Brief (AOB). References to respondent's brief are identified by the initials RB. As used herein "appellant" refers to appellant William Tupua Satele, "Nunez" refers to co-appellant William Nunez. The use of the plurals "defendants" and "appellants" refers jointly to appellant and Nunez. AOB refers to Appellant Satele's Opening Brief, as distinguished from "Nunez's AOB." Statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted. 1
- Page 2 and 3: TABLE OF CONTENTS APPELLANT WILLIAM
- Page 4 and 5: 2. The Pleadings Failed To NotifY A
- Page 6 and 7: VI THE JURy FAILED TO FIND THE DEGR
- Page 8 and 9: C. Standard OfReview And Prejudice
- Page 10 and 11: XIII APPELLANT JOINS IN ALL ISSUES
- Page 12 and 13: Mitchell v. Esparza (2003) 540 U.S.
- Page 14 and 15: People v. Cruz (2001) 93 Cal.App.4t
- Page 16 and 17: People v. Scott (1978) 21 Cal. 3d 2
- Page 20 and 21: ARGUMENTS GUILT PHASE ISSUES I THE
- Page 22 and 23: the facts indicate that only one de
- Page 24 and 25: form finding "personal use" to have
- Page 26 and 27: 57 Cal.AppAth 871, 877; 9 Witkin, C
- Page 28 and 29: the weapon. Without again recountin
- Page 30 and 31: Respondent notes that between the m
- Page 32 and 33: In another apparent attempt to just
- Page 34 and 35: appellant has repeatedly said, the
- Page 37 and 38: not present them to the trial court
- Page 39 and 40: In People v. Knighten (1980) 105 Ca
- Page 41 and 42: Finally, it must be noted that the
- Page 43 and 44: B. The Constitutional Issues Are No
- Page 45 and 46: turn relied on the language from Wi
- Page 47 and 48: Indeed, in this case the instructio
- Page 49 and 50: as the prosecution's first-degree t
- Page 51 and 52: F. Conclusion In summary, by failin
- Page 53 and 54: As appellant explained in the openi
- Page 55 and 56: in the manner suggested by responde
- Page 57 and 58: Furthennore, it is well established
- Page 59 and 60: Appellant has explained above and i
- Page 61 and 62: Cal.App.3d 970, 992.) Instead, resp
- Page 63 and 64: 3. Appellant's Did Not Forfeit His
- Page 65 and 66: In Argument V of the Opening Brief,
- Page 67 and 68: IV IN FAILING TO REDACT PORTIONS OF
CALlIC No. 8.31 passim<br />
CALJIC No. 8.84.1 30<br />
xvii
Change language