People v. Villa CA4/2 ( 2014 )

Filed 10/29/14 P. v. Villa CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E060586
v. (Super.Ct.No. FVI1102623)
JOSEPH VILLA, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. R. Glenn Yabuno,
Judge. Affirmed.
Richard de la Sota, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
I
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On January 9, 2013, an information charged defendant and appellant Joseph Villa
and co-defendant Angela Lucia Sanchez1 with first-degree murder under Penal Code2
section 187, subdivision (a) (count 1); and kidnapping under section 207, subdivision (a)
(count 2). As to both counts, the information also alleged that (1) defendant personally
and intentionally discharged a firearm, a handgun, which caused great bodily injury and
death within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (d), causing the above offense
to become a serious felony under section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(8) and a violent felony
within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (c)(8); (2) defendant personally used a
firearm , a handgun, within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (b), also
causing the above offense to become a serious felony under section 1192.7, subdivision
(c)(8) and a violent felony within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (c)(8); (3)
defendant personally used a firearm, to wit, a handgun, within the meaning of section
1203.06, subdivision (a)(1) and 12022.5, subdivision (a), also causing the above offense
to become a serious felony pursuant to section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(8) and a violent
felony within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (c)(8); and (4) a principal in said
offense was armed with a firearm, to wit, handgun, said arming not being an element of
the above offense, within the meaning of section 12022, subdivision (a)(1).
1 Co-defendant Angela Lucia Sanchez is not a party to this appeal.
2 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
2
Following a trial, the jury convicted defendant of one count of first-degree murder
under section 187 (count 1), and one count of kidnapping under section 207 (count 2).
The jury also found true (1) as to each count that defendant personally discharged a
firearm resulting in the death of the victim within the meaning of section 12022.53,
subdivision (d); and (2) as to count 1, that defendant used a firearm within the meaning of
section 12022.5.3
The trial court sentenced defendant to an indeterminate term of 50 years to life, as
follows: 25 years to life for the first-degree murder charge in count 1, and a consecutive
term of 25 years to life for the section 12022.53, subdivision (d), allegation as to that
count. Pursuant to section 654, the court stayed the prison terms for the offense and
section 12022.53, subdivision (d), allegation as to count 2, as well as the section 12022.5
allegation as to count 1.
On February 7, 2014, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from a final
judgment.
3 Defendant and co-defendant were tried together with separate juries. Co-
defendant’s jury was unable to reach a Verdict and the trial court declared a mistrial as to
her case on December 18, 2013.
3
II
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On May 17, 2011, at 3:45 p.m., San Bernardino County Sheriff’s deputies were
called to an area known as the Deep Creek Spillway in Apple Valley, California. When
they arrived, they saw emergency personnel working on a female, later identified as
Raquel Rayas (the victim), lying on her back near the spillway itself. She had one
gunshot wound to her shoulder and one to her head. She was breathing but unresponsive.
She was wearing a sweatshirt over another shirt, pants, and socks. She was not wearing
shoes and no shoes were found in the area. The victim was transported by ambulance to
Antelope Valley Hospital in Lancaster. She was then airlifted to Adelanto Valley
Hospital, where she died.
The autopsy surgeon, Dr. Frank Sheridan, found that the cause of the victim’s
death was gunshot wounds to the head and neck. The head wound was “clearly lethal,”
and the neck wound “had the potential to be lethal.” The neck wound’s path was left to
right and slightly upward. The bullet was recovered from the sixth cervical vertebra.
The head wound had an entry point in the left temple in front of the ear. That bullet
traveled through the left side of the brain, through the midline of the brain, and came to
rest on the right side of the brain.
Responding deputies found an expended .22 caliber shell casing near the victim’s
body, and two slugs were recovered from her body at the autopsy, one from her neck and
4
one from her brain. Detective Ryan Ford took a buccal swab from defendant on May 26,
2011 for use in DNA testing.
On June 1, 2011, Detective Ford and other law enforcement personnel served
search warrants at homes on Bear Valley Boulevard in Apple Valley, and Itoya Vista
Drive in Apple Valley. The Itoya Vista address was about 150 yards from the Bear
Valley address; it was defendant’s “previous address.” The Bear Valley house belonged
to defendant’s parents, Richard and Amparo Villa. It appears that defendant stayed with
his parents for “two days, three days” after May 26, 2011, then “went down the hill and
. . . came back [and] stayed here and there.”
The deputies recovered a Beretta .22 caliber handgun from a shelving unit outside
the Bear Valley address. There was one live cartridge in the magazine. Other live
cartridges were also located in the same area of the Bear Valley address. The Beretta was
swabbed for DNA.
Hazel Whitworth, a firearms examiner from the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s
Department crime lab, compared the expended shall casing found at the Deep Creek
Spillway crime scene with cartridges that she test-fired from the Beretta pistol recovered
at the Bear Valley residence. She determined that the expended casing from the crime
scene was fired from the Beretta pistol.
Jon Souw was a DNA expert in the forensic biology unit of the San Bernardino
County Sheriff’s crime lab. Souw developed DNA profiles from swabs taken from
defendant and the victim, among others. He also analyzed the swabs taken from the
5
Beretta handgun. Souw found that there was a major contributor and a minor contributor
of the DNA found on the trigger and the slide of the Beretta. Souw developed a DNA
profile of the major contributor. Defendant could not be excluded as the major
contributor to those samples, while the others were excluded as contributors. No DNA
profile could be developed for the minor contributor from either location of the gun.
Detective Ford interviewed defendant on November 14, 2011, at the sheriff’s
headquarters in San Bernardino. The interview was recorded by an audio recorder and by
a video surveillance system. Defendant told Detective Ford that his girlfriend and the
mother of his three children had just left him. Thereafter, the victim stayed with
defendant for a couple of days. He and the victim had sex a couple of times and she
wanted to move in with defendant. He refused because he was hoping to get back
together with his girlfriend. The last time defendant saw the victim was when he dropped
her off at her mother’s house. Defendant denied killing the victim and denied that the
gun that killed her was his gun.
After Detective Ford insisted that defendant had killed the victim, defendant told
the detective that “Angie” (co-defendant) had shot the victim, and that he “went for the
ride.” He was “just . . . at the wrong place at the wrong time.” Defendant said that Angie
and the victim were “boxing” and that he told Angie that they should take her home.
Instead, Angie took the victim to Deep Creek. Angie had a gun that defendant used to
own; he sold it. Angie and the victim argued all the way to Deep Creek.
6
When they got to Deep Creek, defendant said that he heard two shots from behind
some bushes. He then saw the victim on the ground and Angie said that the victim had it
coming. Angie then moved the victim’s body looking for shells. She gave the gun to
defendant. When she did, he was afraid she might shoot him as well. He cleaned the gun
and gave it back to her. Afterwards, they went to Angie’s house, smoked some
marijuana, and had sex “to keep it cool.”
Finally, defendant stated that he was on “a lot of drugs,” and that the victim had
stolen from him and his children. He said that the victim as “just a bad person.”
Defendant admitted that he “did do it,” but he was on drugs. He then stated that they
were going to take the victim home but did not. He did not think he would do it, that he
would just “bluff” her, but “it happened.”
Defendant told Detective Ford and another investigator who had joined them
during the interview, that on the drive to Deep Creek, he sat in the back seat with the gun
in his lap. The victim knew defendant had a gun. Angie had given him the gun the day
before. After they got to the Deep Creek area, Angie and the victim got out of the car
and argued. Defendant accused the victim of stealing from him; she denied it. The
victim told defendant that even if they let her go, she would still “get [defendant] hurts.”
Defendant thought the victim was “crazy” and that her family would hurt him or his
family. The victim told him to do it if he had the “balls.” Defendant then shot the victim
in the neck. Angie told defendant that it was only a .22, and the victim was still alive.
He then shot the victim again; this time in the head. Defendant gave the gun to Angie.
7
He said that he did not know what she did with it. He believed Angie “threw it on the
side of [his] house.”
Defendant did not present a defense.
III
ANALYSIS
After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to
represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal. 3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of
the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court
to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he
has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal. 4th 106, we
have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
8
IV
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RICHLI
Acting P. J.
We concur:
KING
J.
MILLER
J.
9