People v. Chagolla

• Decision Date: 13 June 1983
• Docket Number: C,Cr. 14331
• Citation: 193 Cal.Rptr. 711,144 Cal.App.3d 422
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Edward CHAGOLLA, Ronald Chagolla and Timothy Arevalo, Defendants and Appellants. PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Ronald Angel CHAGOLLA, Defendant and Appellant. r. 14361.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 711

193 Cal.Rptr. 711

144 Cal.App.3d 422

PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Edward CHAGOLLA, Ronald Chagolla and Timothy Arevalo, Defendants and Appellants.

PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Ronald Angel CHAGOLLA, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 14331, Cr. 14361.

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 2, California.

June 13, 1983.

[144 Cal.App.3d 426] Terry E. Bunfill, Sacramento, under assignment by the Court of Appeal, for defendant and appellant Ronald Angel Chagolla.

John R. Fisher, San Francisco, under assignment by the Court of Appeal, for defendant and appellant Edward Angel Chagolla.

Gary H. Blaylock, Upland, under assignment by the Court of Appeal, for defendant and appellant Timothy Arevalo.

John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., A. Wells Petersen and Steven H. Zeigen, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

OPINION

THE COURT. ^*

Defendants Ronald Chagolla, Edward Chagolla, and Timothy Arevalo were convicted by jury verdict of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen.Code, § 245), discharging a firearm at a dwelling (Pen.Code, § 246), and exhibiting a firearm in a threatening manner (Pen.Code, § 417). The jury found that Edward Chagolla personally used a firearm to commit the assault (Pen.Code, § 12022.5) and that Edward Chagolla intentionally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim of the assault (Pen.Code, § 12022.7). Edward Chagolla was sentenced to state prison for a term of six years, Ronald Chagolla was sentenced to state prison for a term of three years, and Timothy Arevalo was sentenced to the Youth Authority for a maximum term of three years. As a result of his conviction, Ronald Chagolla's probation was revoked and he was sentenced to state prison on a previous burglary conviction. The three defendants have each appealed from the judgments against them. Ronald Chagolla has also appealed from the order revoking his probation.

Each defendant contends that the trial court committed reversible error by holding unreported oral communications with the jury during its deliberations without notice to counsel. Ronald Chagolla contends that his convictions are not supported by sufficient evidence. Edward Chagolla contends that the great bodily injury finding is not supported by sufficient evidence and that the trial court lacked authority, after Edward's notice of appeal was filed, to correct an error in the pronouncement of his sentence.

FACTS

Timothy Arevalo was driving his yellow 1962 Chevrolet in the Highgrove area on the afternoon of July 27, 1981. Ronald Chagolla was riding in the front passenger seat, his brother Edward was in the rear seat directly behind him, and Richard Reyes was in the back seat on the driver's side.

At 3:30 Priscilla Ramirez was standing in the front yard of her house in the 800 block of Orange Street when she saw the car pass. She recognized Arevalo and Ronald Chagolla. She heard Ronald yell: "Northside." She saw the car again at 4 and at 5:25.

Anthony Estrada was standing in the front yard of a house on the same block between 5 and 6 p.m. He saw the yellow Chevrolet three times in a 10-minute interval. He also recognized Timothy Arevalo and Ronald Chagolla.

The car was seen by three witnesses who lived in the next block south on Orange Street. One of these witnesses, Patrick Pugh, saw the Chevrolet pass his house three times between 5:30 and 5:45. On the third occasion, he saw Edward Chagolla holding a rifle with the barrel protruding from the side window of the car. When Pugh went outside to investigate, Edward Chagolla swung the rifle barrel until it was pointed directly at Pugh, who took cover and waited for the vehicle to leave.

At about 5:45, the yellow Chevrolet rolled slowly past the house of Charles Contreras at 856 Orange Street. Two witnesses in a car behind it saw Edward Chagolla lean out the side window up to his waist and fire the rifle about 12 times. Roughly half of the bullets struck an insurance agent's car parked in the driveway in front of the Contreras house. The other bullets hit the house. Diana Murillo, age 13 and niece of Charles Contreras, was inside the house standing behind the front door. She opened a small window in the door to see what was happening. A bullet struck her in the right cheek, fragmenting against the mandible or jawbone. Fragments lodged in the neck and in the mastoid bone behind the right ear. The fragments were not removed because the risks of removal outweighed the benefits. Apparently her recovery was satisfactory at the time of trial, three months later, but it was too soon to determine whether there was permanent damage to facial nerves or to the mandible joint.

Police and sheriff's officers were investigating the scene of the shooting at 6:55 when the yellow Chevrolet again passed the Contreras residence. It was pursued and stopped. All the occupants were arrested. Blood samples drawn at 9:30 revealed alcohol content of 0.22 percent for Ronald Chagolla, 0.21 percent for Timothy Arevalo, and 0.19 percent for Edward Chagolla.

I

We turn first to Ronald and Edward's claim of insufficiency of the evidence. " 'The test on appeal is whether substantial evidence supports the conclusion of the trier of fact, not whether the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation omitted.] The appellate court must determine whether a reasonable trier of fact could have found the prosecution sustained its burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.' [Citations omitted.] Evidence to be 'substantial' must be 'of ponderable legal significance ... reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value.' [Citations omitted.] [p] In determining whether a reasonable trier of fact could have found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the appellate court 'must view the evidence in a light most favorable to respondent and presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.' (People v. Mosher (1969) 1 Cal.3d 379, 395 [82 Cal.Rptr. 379, 461 P.2d 659] ... [citation omitted].)" (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576, 162 Cal.Rptr. 431, 606 P.2d 738.)

"Whether a person has aided and abetted in the commission of a crime ordinarily is a question of fact. [Citations omitted.] Consequently, ' "all intendments are in favor of the judgment and a verdict will not be set aside unless the record clearly shows that upon no hypothesis whatsoever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support it." ' (People v. Moore (1953) 120 Cal.App.2d 303, 306, 260 P.2d 1011.)" (In re Lynette G. (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 1087, 1094, 126 Cal.Rptr. 898.)

In order to hold Ronald as an aider and abettor it must be determined whether he, in any way, directly or indirectly, aided the perpetrator, with knowledge of the latter's wrongful purpose. "Among the factors which may be considered in making the determination of aiding and abetting are: presence at the scene of the crime, companionship and conduct before and after the offense. (People v. Hawkins (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 99, 104, 73 Cal.Rptr. 748; People v. Perryman (1967) 250 Cal.App.2d 813, 820, 58 Cal.Rptr. 921; [citations omitted].) In addition, flight is one of the factors which is relevant in determining consciousness of guilt. [Citation omitted.]" (In re Lynette G., supra, 54 Cal.App.3d 1087, 1094-1095, 126 Cal.Rptr. 898.)

We examine Ronald's conduct and other evidence in light of these factors. The vehicle Ronald was in continuously cruised the area where the shooting occurred for over two hours. Ronald's brother, Edward, was in the vehicle occupied by Ronald and armed with a rifle. Ronald leaned out of the window and yelled, "Northside" during one of the passes by the site of the shooting before the shooting. Ronald's brother pointed the rifle at another person south of the shooting site before the shooting. Shortly after pointing the rifle at the person south of the shooting site, Edward used the rifle to do the shooting from the seat directly behind Ronald. Edward fired the rifle approximately 12 times. The vehicle containing Ronald and Edward left the scene immediately after the shooting. Approximately one hour later, the same vehicle containing Edward, Ronald and the others drove past the scene of the shooting. The vehicle was pursued, stopped and all occupants, including Ronald and Edward, were arrested. Evidence indicated all the arrestees had been drinking. It would be farcical for Ronald to contend he was in an automobile with his brother and others for over two hours, cruising the area with his brother pointing a gun at others and be oblivious of what was going on. Ronald's conduct and other circumstances indicating his participation belie this contention. The automobile being a Chevrolet, Ronald would have to have been the General Motors' test dummy to avoid gathering knowledge as to the events about to occur. The fact Ronald had over an hour to disassociate himself from his evil companions who were out to do mischief could also be considered by the jury. The jury could reasonably deduce from direct and circumstantial evidence that Ronald knew Edward was armed with a rifle, knew Edward intended to do the shooting and both directly and indirectly rendered support and encouragement to his brother Edward in the commission of the offense.

Edward Chagolla maintains that the great bodily injury finding is not supported by the evidence because he could not have intended to injure someone inside the house who could not be seen from the street. The uncontradicted evidence, however, was that the victim was hit after she opened a small window in the door and that three or four bullets lodged in the door. The jury could reasonably infer that Edward Chagolla directed his fire at the door after seeing the small window open and that his intention was to inflict great bodily injury on whoever had opened the window. Accordingly, the...