People v. Rocha CA4/2 ( 2020 )

Filed 11/12/20 P. v. Rocha 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E072980
v. (Super.Ct.No. FVI18002910)
ROBERT ORLANDO ROCHA, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Tony Raphael,
Judge. Affirmed.
Mark D. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Robin
Urbanski, and Teresa Torreblanca, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
1
A jury found defendant and appellant Robert Orlando Rocha guilty of three
counts of attempted voluntary manslaughter. (Pen. Code, § 664 & 192, subd. (a).)1 The
jury found true the allegations that (1) the three felonies were committed to benefit a
criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)); and (2) defendant personally used a
firearm when committing the felonies (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). The trial court found
defendant suffered a prior strike conviction. (§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d).) The trial court
sentenced defendant to prison for a term of 40 years. Defendant contends the specific
intent element of the gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)) is not supported by
substantial evidence. We affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 27, 2018, there was a candlelight vigil for Darryl Martin2, who
passed away following a traffic accident in Los Angeles County. Darryl was a member
of the Young Gods, which was a criminal street gang in Apple Valley. The vigil took
place in a carport, at an apartment complex in Apple Valley. Members of the Young
Gods regularly spent time at the apartment complex. Members of the Young Gods,
including Tyrell Tate, attended the vigil.
Ronald Martin was a documented member of the Project Watts Crips, which was
a criminal street gang. Defendant was also a member of the Project Watts Crips.
1 All subsequent statutory references will be to the Penal Code unless otherwise
indicated.
2 We use first names for clarity as some individuals involved in the case share
last names. No disrespect is intended.
2
Defendant became involved with the gang at age nine. Defendant was “born and raised
in the Projects Watts Crips area,” and later moved to San Bernardino. Defendant spent
time at Darryl’s house. Defendant and Ronald attended the vigil. At the vigil,
defendant introduced himself to Tyrell saying, “ ‘I’m Gangster Bob from P.J. Watt[s]
Crips.’ ”
During the vigil, Tyrell’s brother, Joshua Tate, “was really intoxicated.” Joshua
“walk[ed] down the street to use the restroom like in the field.” While down the street,
Ronald and Joshua “exchanged words.” Ronald “knocked out” Joshua. Ronald and
Joshua returned to the vigil. Ronald was agitated and yelling. Ronald yelled, “ ‘You
bitch ass n****** are tripp’n on me.’ Like he kept saying, ‘That’s why I knocked that
bitch ass n**** out right there.’ ” Tyrell heard Ronald and responded, “ ‘You did what
to my brother?’ ” Tyrell walked toward Joshua.
Ronald yelled “P.J. Watts.” Ronald punched Tyrell’s eye. Tyrell bent over with
blood in his eye, and then “[e]verybody started fighting” and “everybody ended up in
the middle of the street.” The fight was like “a mob,” involving 40 to 50 people who
surrounded Tyrell and “started throwing punches” at Ronald. Someone yelled, “ ‘Fuck
P.J.s.’ ” Ronald was “like the black Rambo. Like he fought everybody, like.”
People, including defendant, tried to break up the fight by pulling others away
from the melee. Defendant “went into the middle to try to grab” Ronald and pull him
away. Defendant was unable to remove Ronald from the fight because Ronald fell to
the ground. However, Ronald “kind of jumped up really fast,” and “went to try to fight
again.” Defendant went to his vehicle, reached inside, and then began shooting a gun.
3
Defendant shot Roman Henderson in the leg and buttocks. Henderson watched
the fight and was not near the fighting when he was shot. Henderson fell to the ground
after being shot. Defendant shot Melva Travis in the back. Travis was pulling people
away from the fight. After being shot, Travis fell to the ground. Defendant shot Corry
Johnson in the foot. Johnson was looking for Travis and pulling people away from the
fight when he was shot. Johnson fell to the ground after being shot.
Ronald kicked Henderson’s face while Henderson was on the ground.
Henderson asked for an ambulance. Ronald responded, “ ‘Fuck you[r] ambulance.’ ”
Ronald approached Travis while she was on the ground. Ronald said, “ ‘You could die
too, bitch,’ and he kicked her in the head.”
Project Watts Crips had approximately 300 documented members. The gang
uses acronyms, such as “PJ for Project.” The geographical area claimed by the gang “is
the Imperial Courts Housing Developments in Watts.” However, there are “satellite
locations all throughout Southern California and parts of Nevada.” Members of the
gang are in San Bernardino County and Kern County. The gang is “growing everyday”
in the high desert area.
In closing argument, the prosecutor argued, “So how does the defendant’s
conduct help [Ronald]? Because it’s the defendant’s conduct that allows both of them
to succeed. [¶] [Ronald] kicking Melva Travis in the head while she’s on the floor
telling her, yeah, die. [Ronald] kicking Roman Henderson. The defendant also helps
because he shoots individuals at the location.”
4
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends substantial evidence does not support the specific intent
element of the gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)).
“In addressing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a
conviction, the reviewing court must examine the whole record in the light most
favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—
evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of
fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] The
appellate court presumes in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier
could reasonably deduce from the evidence. [Citations.] The same standard applies
when the conviction rests primarily on circumstantial evidence.” (People v. Kraft
(2000) 23 Cal. 4th 978, 1053 (Kraft).)
The gang enhancement requires evidence that a defendant committed a felony
“with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang
members.” (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1).) If a defendant “commit[s] the charged felony with
known members of a gang, the jury may fairly infer that the defendant had the specific
intent to promote, further, or assist criminal conduct by those gang members.” (People
v. Albillar (2010) 51 Cal. 4th 47, 68.) “There is rarely direct evidence that a crime was
committed for the benefit of a gang. For this reason, ‘we routinely draw inferences
about intent from the predictable results of action. . . .’ [Citation.] ‘Commission of a
crime in concert with known gang members is substantial evidence which supports the
inference that the defendant acted with the specific intent to promote, further or assist
5
gang members in the commission of the crime.’ ” (People v. Miranda (2011) 192
Cal. App. 4th 398, 411-412.)
Ronald was acting like “Rambo”—fighting multiple people. The jury could
reasonably find that defendant intended to assist Ronald in criminal conduct because it
was predictable that Ronald, who was acting like Rambo, would continue his acts of
violence if given the opportunity. By shooting the victims, defendant gave Ronald the
opportunity to perpetrate further violence, and Ronald, acting predictably in the
moment, took advantage of that opportunity. After defendant shot the three victims,
Ronald kicked two of the victims’ heads. Kicking the victims was, at a minimum,
battery (§ 242), which is a crime. The jury could reasonably find that defendant’s
intention was demonstrated by the predictable results of defendant’s actions. (People v.
Miranda, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at p. 411 [“ ‘we routinely draw inferences about intent
from the predictable results of action’ ”].)
A field identification card reflected Ronald was a member of Project Watts
Crips. Ronald’s gang moniker is Bosco. At the vigil, Ronald “introduced himself as
Bosco from P.J. Watts.” Prior to punching Tyrell, Ronald yelled, “P.J. Watts.” It is
dangerous for a person to yell a gang’s name if the person is not a member of the gang.
The field identification card, Ronald’s act of introducing himself with a gang affiliation,
and Ronald’s act of shouting a gang name are evidence that support a finding that
Ronald was a gang member.
Defendant and Ronald exchanged text messages with one another. This evidence
shows that defendant knew Ronald. After the shooting and kicking of the victims,
6
Ronald said to defendant, “ ‘Let’s roll, cuz.’ ” “[C]uz is commonly used by Crip
members. As a form of saying, whether it’s brother, or hey, let’s roll, hommie [sic],
they will use, let’s roll, cuz.” This evidence shows that Ronald used gang terminology
with defendant. One can infer from that use of terminology that Ronald was sufficiently
familiar with defendant to know that defendant was a gang member.
Additionally, Travis described defendant as Ronald’s “homie. His friend.”
Defendant tried to pull Ronald out of the fight. One can infer that defendant attempted
to aid Ronald because defendant and Ronald were friends. Defendant and Ronald’s
friendship indicates that defendant is familiar with Ronald. Further, defendant was born
in 1975 and became involved with the Project Watts Crips at the age of nine. This
evidence reflects defendant had a long history with the Project Watts Crips. From this
evidence a trier of fact could infer that defendant was familiar with other members of
Project Watts Crips, such as his friend Ronald.
Further, immediately before the fight began, Ronald was walking “in the middle
of the crowd” and yelling. Ronald yelled, “P.J. Watts.” One witness said that, as
Ronald “continue[d] to yell . . . people started to gather to find out exactly what was
going on.” Thus, Ronald was yelling loudly. Another witness said that “[e]verybody”
at the vigil was present at the start of the fight. One can infer that defendant was part of
the “[e]verybody” that was nearby because he tried to break-up the fight by pulling
Ronald away before going to his vehicle to retrieve his firearm. The fact that defendant
was close enough to reach Ronald in the melee, indicates that he was nearby when the
fighting began, which indicates defendant would have been close enough to hear Ronald
7
yell “P.J. Watts.” Given that defendant is familiar with P.J. Watts, he would know what
the name meant and that the shouting of the gang name meant Ronald was a gang
member.
In sum, from the text messages, gang lingo, friendship, defendant’s long history
with the gang, and Ronald shouting “P.J. Watts,” a reasonable trier of fact could find
that defendant was aware that Ronald was a member of the Project Watts Crips.
In sum, the evidence reflects Ronald was a gang member; defendant knew
Ronald was a gang member; and it was predictable that Ronald would continue his acts
of violence if defendant shot the victims. A trier of fact could reasonably find that
defendant intended, when shooting the victims, to assist Ronald, who was a gang
member, with criminal acts. We conclude substantial evidence supports the jury’s true
finding on the gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)).
Defendant contends there is no evidence to support the gang expert’s opinion that
violence by one gang member creates a reputation for violence that assists other gang
members in committing future crimes. Our analysis ante does not rely upon such expert
testimony. Because we do not rely upon that expert testimony, we do not delve further
into that particular argument.
Defendant contends that if there is some evidence in the record that he intended
to assist the criminal conduct of gang members, then the evidence is insufficient
“because the record establishes [defendant] was also motivated by his own self
interests.” Defendant points to expert testimony in the record reflecting that if a gang
8
member does not assist a second gang member who is under attack, then that gang
member will be punished for failing to assist.
“Although it is the jury’s duty to acquit a defendant if it finds the circumstantial
evidence susceptible of two reasonable interpretations, one of which suggests guilt and
the other innocence, it is the jury, not the appellate court that must be convinced of the
defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] ‘ “If the circumstances
reasonably justify the trier of fact’s findings, the opinion of the reviewing court that the
circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does not
warrant a reversal of the judgment.” ’ ” (Kraft, supra, 23 Cal.4th at pp. 1053-1054.)
The evidence of defendant’s intent in this case is circumstantial. Defendant is
correct that the record includes expert testimony from which one might conclude
defendant shot the victims with the intent of saving himself from gang discipline.
However, there is also evidence in the record from which one could conclude that
defendant shot the victims with the intent of assisting Ronald in criminal acts. It was
the jury’s role to make a decision regarding that evidence. On appeal, our role is to
determine if there is substantial evidence to support the jury’s decision. (Kraft, supra,
23 Cal.4th at pp. 1053-1054.) Accordingly, we cannot reverse on the basis of an
alternate intent.
Defendant contends the lack of substantial evidence violated his right of due
process. We have concluded substantial evidence supports the true finding on the gang
enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)). Therefore, we conclude defendant’s right of due
process was not violated.
9
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
SLOUGH
J.
10