People v. Siguantay CA1/5

── People v. Siguantay CA1/5 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 29, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/29/26 P. v. Siguantay CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A171289 v. MAYNOR OXLAJ SIGUANTAY, (Marin County Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. CR0001267) This is an appeal from judgment after a jury convicted defendant Maynor Oxlaj Siguantay of second degree robbery, with a special enhancement for personal firearm use (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 120225, subd. (a), 12022.53, subds. (b), (g));1 possessing a firearm as a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)); and two counts of obstructing or resisting an officer (§ 69). Defendant challenges the judgment on grounds that his trial counsel was prejudicially ineffective in failing to object to the admission of testimonial hearsay in violation of the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and that section 29800, subdivision (a)(1) is facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. We affirm. 1 Unless otherwise stated, all statutory citations herein are to the Penal Code. 1  FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On February 26, 2024, a criminal information was filed charging defendant with second degree robbery (§ 211; count 1), possessing a firearm as a felon (§ 29800; count 2), and two counts of obstructing or resisting an executive officer (§ 69; counts 3–4). It was further alleged that, in committing the robbery, defendant personally used a firearm (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.53, subds. (b), (g)). A jury trial revealed the following evidence. On November 23, 2023, around 7 p.m., the victim, Ernesto V., left home to run an errand. He came across two male acquaintances outside a restaurant on Tamalpais Avenue in San Rafael. As the three men chatted, defendant approached them from the direction of a liquor store next to the restaurant. Defendant pointed a gun at the men and demanded their money. Ernesto, who was afraid, handed defendant $175 in cash. Defendant, before fleeing, warned the men, “ ‘I don’t want to see you here anymore because I’ll be back.’ ” After debating with his acquaintances what to do, Ernesto eventually contacted the police 20 or so minutes later. Since he did not have a phone, Ernesto entered the liquor store and asked an employee to call the police. The employee, who believed Ernesto had been drinking, called 911 and passed along Ernesto’s description of the robber: a Latino male; 25 to 35 years old; with “cutted [sic]” jeans, a black jacket, buzz-cut hair and a tattoo over his right eye. Police Officer Casey Debolt responded to the scene and spoke to Ernesto. The officer suspected Ernesto was drunk, although Ernesto said he had just two beers at lunch. Officer Debolt was also concerned about inconsistencies in Ernesto’s statements. For example, Ernesto initially stated that he “ ‘just gave him the money’ ” and later stated the robber 2 demanded the money. Officer Debolt also found it strange that Ernesto described the robber’s gun as “yellow,” which was not a typical firearm color. About two hours later, a mile or so from the robbery scene, Officer Debolt saw defendant walking with a woman pushing a small child in a stroller. Similar to Ernesto’s descripti