People v. Barajas CA2/6

Filed 1/12/23 P. v. Barajas 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B319056
(Super. Ct. No. 2020020703)
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)
v.
ANGEL JESUS ALVAREZ
BARAJAS,
Defendant and Appellant.
Angel Jesus Alvarez Barajas appeals from the judgment
after a jury convicted him of conspiracy to commit theft. (Pen
Code, § 182, subd. (a)(1).)
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal.
After an examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief
that raises no arguable issues. On November 3, 2022, we notified
appellant by mail that he had 30 days within which to personally
submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. The
30 days have since passed, and appellant has not presented any
contentions or issues for our consideration.
In July 2020, appellant drove a U-Haul truck throughout a
residential neighborhood, along with his passenger, Antonio
Porcallo, looking for items to steal. One witness observed the U-
Haul truck parked in the middle of the street in front of her
house. Her Ring-Camera video recorded Porcallo stealing an
Amazon package from her front porch that contained a Nintendo
controller. Porcallo also stole a pair of Nike running shoes.
Shortly thereafter, Porcallo was observed by two more
witnesses putting a bicycle in the back of the U-Haul truck before
the truck sped off. Meanwhile, another individual discovered his
black beach cruiser bicycle with a missing handle was no longer
in his garage.
Police responded to a 911 call for service, located the U-
Haul truck, and detained appellant and Porcallo. Police searched
the truck and discovered several stolen items including the
Amazon package with the Nintendo controller, the Nike running
shoes, and three bicycles, one of which was the black beach
cruiser bicycle with the missing handle. Porcallo told police that
he and appellant planned to look through neighborhoods for
items to steal and agreed that appellant would keep the stolen
packages and Porcallo would keep the stolen bicycles.
At trial, Porcallo denied making the statements to police.
He “admitted to stealing the stuff,” but testified that he and
appellant did not plan it, they “just did it.” Appellant’s defense
counsel argued that Porcallo was the thief and appellant was just
the driver, a “patsy, a dupe,” who mistakenly believed the
packages and bicycles were items listed for “free” on Craigslist.
By its verdict, the jury necessarily rejected appellant’s defense.
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that
appellant’s attorney fully complied with her responsibilities and
2
that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
YEGAN, J.
We concur:
GILBERT, P. J.
BALTODANO, J.
3
Derek D. Malan, Judge
Superior Court County of Ventura
______________________________
Sanger Swysen & Dunkle and Sarah S. Sanger, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.