People v. Almanza

• Decision Date: 09 May 2012
• Docket Number: A130867
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THOMAS MARIO ALMANZA III, Defendant and Appellant.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THOMAS MARIO ALMANZA III, Defendant and Appellant.

A130867

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE

Dated: May 9, 2012

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCR253623)

Defendant was convicted following a jury trial of unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), with an enhancement for the same prior offense.¹ In this appeal he claims that evidence of an uncharged offense was erroneously admitted by the trial court, and the verdict is not supported by the evidence. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of a prior similar offense, and substantial evidence supports the conviction. We therefore affirm the judgment.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

About 12:30 p.m. on February 15, 2008, Domenic Baldacchino was advised by the Elk Grove Police Department that his 2003 red Chevrolet Silverado truck he left for recall service at Meta Chevrolet in Elk Grove had been stolen from the lot. At approximately 10:15 that night, California Highway Patrol Officer Bill Wesselman wasriding in a marked patrol vehicle with his partner on Interstate 80 in Solano County when he observed the red Silverado truck, license 7G75934, traveling westbound at a speed in excess of 80 miles per hour. The officers initiated a pursuit to attempt a detention of the Silverado, with patrol vehicle lights activated. The red Silverado "cut across" lanes of traffic and "suddenly exited" the freeway on the Midway Road off ramp. The officers followed the Silverado with siren activated.

On Midway Road, the Silverado ran through stop signs, crossed over the solid double yellow line into the opposite direction of travel at least five to ten times, and exceeded 90 miles per hour. Officer Wesselman testified that as the vehicle chase continued on Midway Road he observed three occupants in the Silverado: two males in the front seat, and a female in the rear seat.

Still proceeding westbound at a speed in excess of 90 miles per hour on Midway Road between Leisure Town Road and Interstate 505, the Silverado suddenly "blacked out" as the headlights and taillights were turned off. The officers informed "dispatch" of the pursuit, but lost sight of the vehicle.

Officer David Novelli of the Vacaville Police Department heard the report that a "red Chevy pickup truck" had evaded the California Highway Patrol Officers, and assisted in the pursuit. Fifteen to thirty minutes later at 3252 Vaca Valley Road near Pleasant Valley Road, an area that "would lead" from Midway Road, Officer Novelli observed the red Silverado with a matching license plate parked in a driveway. He found keys in the ignition, but no occupants in the vehicle or nearby. Officer Wesselman arrived momentarily and confirmed that the vehicle discovered by Officer Novelli was the same one he pursued.

Heather Archibald, a resident of the house at 767 Corte Granada Lane, very near Vaca Valley Road and Pleasant Valley Road, testified that between 10:00 and 12:00 that night a female and two males, one of whom she identified as defendant, came to her front door and offered her $100 for a ride to Dixon. Archibald declined the offer and shut her door.

Michelle Wohler, a driver for Yellow Cab of Vacaville, was dispatched to meet passengers "in the court" at 767 Corte Granada Lane some time after 9:00 that night. On the way there, she encountered numerous police officers and a helicopter flying above. She spoke with a Vacaville Police Officer Andy Moriarty, then proceeded to the house. Officer Moriarty then "blacked out" his patrol vehicle and waited for her to return. Wohler waited at the house briefly, whereupon two males and a female, "all Mexican," came out of a back yard and knocked on the passenger side of her cab. After they got into the back seat, Wohler began to drive her cab away.

Officer Moriarty, who was waiting for the "taxi to exit the court," detained the cab and immediately arrested the three occupants as suspects in the pursuit of the Silverado. Defendant mentioned that he was from Elk Grove. He stated that the "female he was with" told him "about a party in the area of Vacaville." Defendant volunteered that he had been "dropped off by his cousin," who was driving a black Ford Expedition and was waiting for him at a Wal-Mart in Dixon.

During a subsequent interview at the California Highway Patrol office, defendant stated that earlier in the evening his uncle picked him up at his house in the Sacramento area in a "Ford SUV," to go "to a party." They left defendant's house, but "didn't make it to the party." Defendant then invoked his Miranda rights and refused to make any further statements.

The prosecution also presented evidence of a prior uncharged vehicle theft and police pursuit. The sales manager for the Lasher Elk Grove Acura dealership testified that a new Acura MDX arrived at the dealership on January 29, 2008. The car was "inventoried" and placed, unlocked, in the service department lot for inspection and detailing the next day. The keys to the ignition were placed on an unsecured keyboard at the dealership. The sales manager did not report the vehicle stolen, but a few days later he received information that the Acura MDX had been recovered by the police.

About 11:45 p.m. on February 1, 2008, Police Officer Daniel Gill of the West Sacramento Police Department was in a marked patrol vehicle in the parking lot of an apartment complex on Lighthouse Drive when he noticed a new Acura MDX with"Lasher Acura paper plates," but not the typical "temporary DMV registration," on the front windshield. As Officer Gill made a U-turn he observed the Acura leave the parking lot and proceed eastbound on Lighthouse Drive. As the officer engaged his overhead lights the Acura accelerated to 65 miles per hour over the I Street Bridge, then straddled the double yellow line on the roadway and ran red lights. After the officer activated his siren, the driver of the Acura entered Interstate 5, accelerated to 90 miles per hour, turned off his lights, and nearly collided with a truck. When the Acura turned eastbound onto Interstate 80, with heavier traffic, Officer Gill "decided to cancel the pursuit." He advised dispatch and a Sacramento Police helicopter of his location. The Acura took the Northgate Boulevard exit as it pulled away from the officer, and the lights were turned back on.

Officer Daniel Paiz of the Sacramento Police Department learned of the pursuit and observed the police helicopter overhead. He saw the Acura stop at an apartment complex at 801 San Juan Avenue. The driver left the vehicle and fled into the apartments. Officer Paiz followed, and came upon muddy footprints leading to the patio area of one of the apartments, where the driver "was last seen." The patio door was recently opened and "stuff was moved to the back of the patio." The apartment was subsequently searched and defendant was discovered hiding in a bedroom closet.

Officer Gill then arrived at the apartment complex. He identified the Acura parked on San Juan Avenue as the vehicle he pursued, and defendant as the driver of the vehicle. The keys had been left in the ignition of the Acura. A "glass smoking pipe typically used to smoke methamphetamine" was found inside the Acura, as were "shaved car keys" and "additional car keys that looked like they might have been from a dealership."

DISCUSSION

II. The Admission of Evidence of the Uncharged Vehicle Theft Offense.

Defendant argues that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of the prior "Sacramento incident" to prove his identity of the charged offense. He claims the uncharged offense was not sufficiently similar to the charged violation of Vehicle Codesection 10851 to qualify for admission under subdivision (b) of Evidence Code section 1101, and was more prejudicial than probative.²

Under section 1101, subdivision (b), evidence of other crimes is admissible if it tends logically, naturally, and by reasonable inference to establish any fact material to the prosecution other than general criminal disposition or to overcome any matter sought to be proved by the defense.³ (People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380, 393; People v. Hamilton (1985) 41 Cal.3d 408, 425.) "Evidence that a defendant has committed crimes other than those currently charged is not admissible to prove that the defendant is a person of bad character or has a criminal disposition; but evidence of uncharged crimes is admissible to prove, among other things, the identity of the perpetrator of the charged crimes, the existence of a common design or plan, or the intent with which the perpetrator acted in the commission of the charged crimes. (Evid. Code, § 1101.) Evidence of uncharged crimes is admissible to prove identity, common design or plan, or intent only if the charged and uncharged crimes are sufficiently similar to support a rational inference of identity, common design or plan, or intent." (People v. Kipp (1998) 18 Cal.4th 349, 369.)

"If evidence of prior conduct is sufficiently similar to the charged crimes to be relevant to prove the defendant's intent, common plan, or identity, the trial court then must consider whether the probative value of the evidence 'is "substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission [would] . . . create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury." (Evid. Code, § 352.)' [Citation.] 'Rulings made under [sections 1101 and 352] are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. [Citation.]' [Citation.] 'Under the abuse of discretion standard, "a trialcourt's ruling will...