People v. Manriquez

• Decision Date: 24 February 1999
• Docket Number: No. G021452,G021452
• Citation: 70 Cal.App.4th 1040,83 Cal.Rptr.2d 53
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Previously published at 70 Cal.App.4th 1040 70 Cal.App.4th 1040, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2033, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2627 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Ivan Antonio MANRIQUEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 53

83 Cal.Rptr.2d 53

Previously published at 70 Cal.App.4th 1040

70 Cal.App.4th 1040, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2033,

1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2627

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Ivan Antonio MANRIQUEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

No. G021452.

Court of Appeal, Fourth District,

Division 3, California.

Feb. 24, 1999.

Leslie C. Greenbaum, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Pacific Palisades, for Defendant and Appellant.

Daniel E. Lungren and Bill Lockyer, Attorneys General, George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Esteban Hernandez and Leslie B. Fleming, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

O P I N I O N

SONENSHINE, J.

Following a bench trial, the court found Ivan Antonio Manriquez aided and abetted first degree murder and attempted premeditated murder and personally used a firearm. Manriquez challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the court's decision to admit evidence of his gang status. We affirm.

I

On Halloween night 1993, about a dozen Sullivan Street gang members were standing at a taco stand located in an area claimed by the Lil' Mafia gang. In the gang culture, such territorial intrusions often provoke a retaliatory response by the local gang. And in this case, the Lil' Mafia wasted no time reacting to Sullivan Street's challenge.

Initially, two people in a Chevrolet drove by the taco stand yelling, "Lil' Mafia" and displaying a chrome handgun. The Sullivan Street members responded by hollering out their gang's name and flashing hand signs. A few minutes later, the Chevrolet reappeared, followed by a Honda. As the cars slowly pulled up to the taco stand with their lights off, the Chevrolet's front passenger, Manriquez, hollered, "Fuck Sullivan." With that, the Honda's passenger, Gustavo Gonzalez, opened fire on the group with an assault rifle, fatally wounding Rosa Carrillo and injuring Miguel Vargas. Using a chrome .45-caliber semi-automatic pistol, Manriquez fired several shots at the group, but he did not hit anybody. ¹

Two undercover police officers happened to be in the area. They pursued the vehicles to Gonzalez's house, where they apprehended the Chevrolet's driver, Vincent Resendiz, and the Honda's driver, Guillermo Flores. However, after discarding their weapons, Manriquez and Gonzalez got away.

Manriquez fled to Mexico and remained at large until he was arrested in Texas in 1995. In an interview with police, he denied being a gang member, but he admitted he had been "kicking back" with the Lil' Mafia for two years at the time of the shooting. ² Manriquez also knew of and was involved in the rivalry with Sullivan Street. Indeed, on the afternoon of the shooting, the Sullivan Streeters pelted him and Resendiz with bottles when they drove by the taco stand. Manriquez and his pals congregated at Gonzalez's house, where they decided to confront their rivals, or as Manriquez put it, "To shit on 'em." When they approached the taco stand, Gonzalez started firing from the Honda. Then Resendiz told Manriquez to start shooting the Sullivan Streeters. Manriquez pulled out the handgun and emptied a full clip of ammunition.

Corporal Richard Reese, a gang expert and the lead investigator on the case, testified the incident fit the classic pattern of a gang-related drive-by shooting. He believed Manriquez was a member of the Lil' Mafia because gangs do not allow nonmembers to come along on drive-by shootings. That is because participants in a drive-by shooting must be able to trust each other in terms of backing each other up and not talking to the police. As Reese explained, it would defy logic and experience to believe someone would fire shots during a gang-related drive-by without knowing the underlying gang implications of the shooting.

In closing, Manriquez argued he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He claimed he did not know his friends were planning on doing a drive-by shooting, and he simply fired the gun at Resendiz's command. Alternatively, Manriquez argued imperfect self-defense, based on his being tired, his drinking and his erroneous belief someone was firing at him. Manriquez admitted the facts were not very favorable to him, and in the end the court rejected Manriquez's arguments out of hand. The court found the occupants of both cars knew they were going to commit a drive-by shooting, and by firing his gun Manriquez aided and abetted Gonzalez in committing murder and attempted murder.

II

Manriquez argues there is insufficient evidence to support the court's findings. We disagree.

"Our role in considering an insufficiency of the evidence claim is quite limited. We do not reassess the credibility of witnesses, and we review the record in the light most favorable to the judgment, drawing all inferences from the evidence which supports the [fact finder's] verdict. By this process we endeavor to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have been persuaded of the defendant's guilt." (People v. Olguin (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1382, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 596, citations and internal quotation marks omitted; original italics.)

To be liable as an aider and abettor, the defendant "must act with knowledge of the criminal purpose of the perpetrator and with an intent or purpose either of committing, or of encouraging or facilitating commission of, the offense. The jury must find the intent to encourage and bring about conduct that is criminal, not the specific intent that is an element of the...