People v. Avila CA2/6 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • Filed 6/10/14 P. v. Avila CA2/6
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
    SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION SIX
    THE PEOPLE,                                                                  2d Crim. No. B247954
    (Super. Ct. No. BA366400)
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                               (Los Angeles County)
    v.
    DANIEL AVILA,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    A jury convicted Daniel Avila of eight counts of making criminal threats.
    (Pen. Code, § 422.) The jury also found hate crime allegations to be true as to counts 1
    and 9. (Id., § 422.55.)1 Avila received a prison sentence of 11 years, 4 months.
    On appeal Avila contends the hate crime allegations are not supported by
    substantial evidence. We affirm.
    FACTS
    (a) Marc Leventhal (count 1)
    Ventura County Deputy District Attorney Marc Leventhal prosecuted Avila
    for criminal fraud in 2005. While Avila was out on bail, he threatened to kill a man in
    Texas and rape the man's daughters. The court granted Leventhal's motion to increase
    1
    All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
    Avila's bail. Avila was then held in custody. While in jail, Avila called his mother,
    Herminia Avila, who placed calls to third parties for him in violation of jail rules.
    Leventhal threatened to have Avila's right of representation revoked if he continued.
    In July 2008 Leventhal obtained a recording of a telephone call between
    Avila and his mother. At the beginning of the call, Avila announced that the call was
    privileged and no one was allowed to listen. He said he was testing the privilege by
    threatening to kill Leventhal. He said he knew where Leventhal lived and would kill him
    if he continued to harass Herminia Avila.
    During August and September 2009, Leventhal received five or six
    telephone calls from Avila. During the calls Avila said: "I'm gonna kill your ass,
    motherfucker. I'm gonna get you for being a Jew, I'm gonna burn you the way Hitler
    should have done that to your fuckin' parents. [¶] . . . [¶] I'm gonna kill your ass,
    motherfucker. Kill your ass. Piece of shit. Fuckin' Jewish fuckin' kike. Yep, they
    should've killed your parents, man. If Hitler would have murdered your parents, you
    would have never been born. Had 'em burned. Burned your dad, man. They would have
    never been able to create your ass."
    The telephone calls terrified Leventhal. He spoke to Avila's doctor who
    said Leventhal should take the threats seriously.
    (b) Rama Maline (count 9)
    In July 2009 Deputy Attorney General Rama Maline was prosecuting three
    other defendants for conspiracy to murder Leventhal. Maline is half Indian. Between
    July and September 2009, Avila made eight telephone calls to Maline. During the
    telephone calls Avila continually referred to Maline as a "raghead," and threatened to kill
    Maline "for being a fucking raghead." In one telephone call he told Maline, "I'm going to
    kill your raghead ass for being a fucking raghead. You're a traitor to the United States.
    You're a second generation raghead. Why don't you go back to your fucking Rama
    country, man."
    2
    (c) Other Threats2
    Deputy Attorney General Jonathan Kline was prosecuting Avila for threats
    to Leventhal and others. Avila made two telephone calls to Kline threatening to kill him.
    Deputy Attorney General Michele Wong received five telephone calls from
    Avila threatening to rape and murder her.
    Deputy District Attorneys Kasey Sirody, Rachelle Dean, Melissa Suttner
    and Joann Roth received letters and telephone calls from Avila threatening to rape and
    murder them.
    All the victims testified Avila's threats made them fearful.
    DEFENSE
    Deputy Public Defender William Quest was advised by a sheriff's deputy
    that Avila had written a letter threatening to kill Quest. Quest knew Avila to be severely
    mentally ill and did not take the threat seriously. He laughed about it with the sheriff's
    deputy.
    Deputy Public Defender Cynthia Ellington represented Avila in an election
    fraud case after his in propria persona status was revoked. Avila sent Ellington a letter
    threatening to kill her. The letter caused her no fear because she knew Avila well. She
    even found the letter to be humorous. She framed it and hung it on her wall "for others to
    enjoy."
    DISCUSSION
    Avila contends the hate crime enhancements were not supported by
    substantial evidence.
    Section 422.55, subdivision (a) provides in part: "'Hate crime' means a
    criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following
    actual or perceived characteristics of the victim: . . . (4) Race or ethnicity."
    2
    Because Avila's contentions on appeal relate only to threats against Leventhal and
    Maline, we need to only briefly summarize Avila's threats against others.
    3
    Section 422.56, subdivision (d) provides: "[As used in section 422.55,
    subdivision (a):] 'In whole or in part because of' means that the bias motivation must be a
    cause in fact of the offense, whether or not other causes also exist. When multiple
    concurrent motives exist, the prohibited bias must be a substantial factor in bringing
    about the particular result. There is no requirement that the bias be a main factor, or that
    the crime would not have been committed but for the actual or perceived characteristic.
    This subdivision does not constitute a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law under
    In re M.S. (1995) 
    10 Cal.4th 698
     and People v. Superior Court (Aishman) (1995) 
    10 Cal.4th 735
    ." (Underline omitted, italics added.)
    In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence we view the evidence in a light
    most favorable to the judgment. (People v. Johnson (1980) 
    26 Cal.3d 557
    , 578.) We
    discard evidence that does not support the judgment as having been rejected by the trier
    of fact for lack of sufficient verity. (People v. Ryan (1999) 
    76 Cal.App.4th 1304
    , 1316.)
    We have no power on appeal to reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of
    witnesses. (People v. Stewart (2000) 
    77 Cal.App.4th 785
    , 790.) We must affirm if we
    determine that any rational trier of fact could find the elements of the crime or
    enhancement beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Johnson, supra, at p. 578.)
    Here Avila threatened Leventhal, "I'm gonna kill your ass, motherfucker.
    I'm gonna get you for being a Jew, I'm gonna burn you the way Hitler should have done
    that to your fuckin' parents." Avila also threatened Maline, "I'm going to kill your
    raghead ass for being a fucking raghead." "Raghead" is an obvious reference to Maline's
    Indian heritage.
    The jury could reasonably conclude from this language, as well as from
    Avila's use of other racially charged language, that Leventhal's and Maline's race or
    ethnicity was a substantial factor in making the threats. It may be true that Avila was not
    solely motivated by race or ethnicity. But section 422.56, subdivision (d) clarifies that
    sole motivation is not a requirement. Race or ethnicity of the victims need only be a
    "substantial factor." (Ibid.)
    4
    Avila claims In re M.S., supra, 
    10 Cal.4th 698
     and People v. Lindberg
    (2008) 
    45 Cal.4th 1
    , make it clear that the defendant must be motivated by racial bias
    such that the crimes would not have occurred in the absence of that motivation. But
    neither case so holds. Instead, both cases affirm that the substantial factor test applies.
    Section 422.56, subdivision (d) provides in part: "There is no requirement that the bias
    be a main factor, or that the crime would not have been committed but for the actual or
    perceived characteristic." Thus the People need not prove Avila was motivated by racial
    bias such that the crimes would not have occurred in the absence of that motivation.
    The judgment is affirmed.
    GILBERT, P. J.
    We concur:
    PERREN, J.
    BURKE, J.*
    *
    (Judge of the Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County, assigned by the Chief Justice
    pursuant to art. 6, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)
    5
    Craig J. Mitchell, Judge
    Superior Court County of Los Angeles
    ______________________________
    David M. Thompson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
    Defendant and Appellant.
    Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant
    Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Paul M.
    Roadarmel, Jr., Victoria B. Wilson, Supervising Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff
    and Respondent.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B247954

Filed Date: 6/10/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014