Sixteen Years in Prison for Stalking

March 12, 2025

0 Views 0

SaveSavedRemoved 0

Post 5012

See the full video at https://rumble.com/v6qfjoc-sixteen-years-in-prison-for-stalking.html and at https://youtu.be/L8L95tOsHsE

Walter Bonilla Munguia was convicted of multiple offenses arising out of a months’ long campaign of stalking and violence against Jane Doe. Munguia was sentenced to an aggregate term of 16 years in prison. On appeal, he argued that the trial court abused its discretion and that the trial court erroneously declined to give a mistake of fact jury instruction on one of the stalking charges.

In The People v. Walter Bonilla Munguia, F086572, California Court of Appeals, Fifth District (February 26, 2025) affirmed Munguia’s conviction.

Statement of Facts:

Jane Doe reconnected with Munguia in March 2022 and started a dating relationship with him. However, the relationship turned violent, and Munguia attacked Doe multiple times, including an incident where he grabbed her by the neck, pushed her into a wall, and choked her.
Munguia continued to harass and threaten Doe even after a restraining order was issued against him in October 2022.

Procedural History:

On May 11, 2023, the Kern County District Attorney’s Office filed an amended information charging Munguia with multiple offenses, including stalking, assault with a semi-automatic firearm, terrorist threats, spousal abuse, false imprisonment, assault with a deadly weapon, kidnapping, and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction.
On June 2, 2023, a jury found Munguia guilty of several charges, including stalking in violation of a restraining order, false imprisonment, assault with a deadly weapon, and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction.
On July 11, 2023, the trial court sentenced Munguia to an aggregate term of 16 years in prison.

Discussion:

The Court of Appeals concluded:

The trial court properly denied Munguia’s motion, as mere disagreement over a plea deal does not constitute an irreconcilable conflict that deprived Munguia of effective assistance of counsel.
The trial court properly declined to give the mistake of fact instruction as to count 1, as section 646.9, subdivision (b) is an alternative penalty provision and not an element of the offense.

Munguia argued it was reasonable for him to think that the court order he received was fraudulent, in light of the other contents of the text messages describing Doe’s potential involvement in insurance fraud.

Legal Standard and Analysis

Section 646.9, subdivision (a) states, “[a]ny person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or willfully and maliciously harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for their safety… is guilty of the crime of stalking, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison.”

The mistake of fact instruction was given as to count 10. The jury nonetheless convicted Munguia necessarily repudiating his mistake of fact defense as to that conduct.

The judgment was affirmed.

A very bad man doing very bad things to an innocent female tried to avoid his conviction by accusing her of insurance fraud which he claimed allowed him to ignore the restraining order. His allegation failed and he was properly and effectively sentenced to 16 years in prison which sentence was affirmed.