People v. Marcos
| Decision Date | 07 July 2017 |
| Docket Number | E065311 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT IGNACIO MARCOS, Defendant and Appellant. |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
OPINIONAPPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Gregory S. Tavill, Judge. Affirmed.
Steven A. Brody, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris and Xavier Becerra, Attorneys General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Alana C. Butler, Warren J. Williams, and Kathryn A. Kirschbaum, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Robert Ignacio Marcos was looking for his wife; he believed that victim Nicanor Hernandez Duran knew where she was. Defendant therefore made Duran get in his car and guide him to where his wife was. Meanwhile, defendant punched Duran repeatedly; defendant also took his identification cards and seven dollars in cash. When Duran could not find the location, defendant took Duran back to his own home and tied him up overnight before making him try again in the morning.
After a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211); not guilty of simple kidnapping (Pen. Code, § 207, subd. (a)), but guilty of the lesser included offense of felony false imprisonment (Pen. Code, §§ 236, 237, subd. (a)); and not guilty of making a criminal threat. (Pen. Code, § 422, subd. (a).) He was sentenced to a total of three years in prison, along with the usual fines, fees, and miscellaneous sentencing orders.
Defendant now contends that the trial court erred by:
1. Admitting evidence that defendant's wife was at a domestic violence shelter.
2. Denying defendant's motion for a mistrial after a witness revealed that defendant had been in jail.
3. Imposing separate and unstayed sentences for both robbery and false imprisonment.
We find no error. Hence, we will affirm.
I
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Victim Duran lived in a trailer in Bloomington. He made a living selling corn. He first met defendant's wife, Maria Salvador, around the beginning of September 2014, when she bought some corn from him. He showed her how to sell her home-made tamales. She did not have a car, so three days a week, he would pick her and her children up at her home, drop the children off at school, and take her to a swap meet where she sold tamales. On one occasion, he saw defendant at her house.
On September 19, 2014, defendant's wife asked Duran to pick up her and her children and take them to San Bernardino. When he did so, he noticed that she had a black eye. He took her to the police station. He then dropped her off at a gas station, and "the shelter came to pick her up."1 He knew what the shelter looked like and generally where it was, because she had pointed out the building to him from a distance.
On September 24, 2014, around 10:00 p.m., Duran was sitting outside behind his trailer when a car pulled up and stopped. Defendant and another man got out and went into the trailer. Duran looked inside and saw defendant rifling through his medications and Social Security documents. Defendant had a laser pointer that he was using as a flashlight.
Duran asked what they were doing there and told them to get out. They came outside. Duran took out his cell phone to call the police, but defendant grabbed it and broke it in half.
Defendant asked where his wife was. Duran said he did not know. Defendant said "[he] did know . . . [a]nd . . . if [he] didn't tell[] them they were going to kill [him]." Defendant then punched him, with a closed fist, on the face, chest, and back some 10 or 20 times.2 The "other guy" hit him five times in the head. When he fell to the ground, they kicked him ten times in the back.
Finally, Duran told them that defendant's wife was in a shelter in San Bernardino. Defendant ordered Duran to take them there. Duran offered to get into his own car and lead them there, but they forced him into their car. Defendant kept hitting Duran "the whole way."
They drove for about 30 minutes, then stopped at an empty lot. They took Duran out and started punching and kicking him again. Defendant said "he was going to kill [Duran] because [Duran] was . . . involved with his wife."
They then said "they were going to take [him] somewhere else and they were going to kill [him.]" They drove for 30 or 40 minutes. During the drive, defendant took Duran's driver's license, his green card, and seven dollars in cash. Defendant said theywere going to kill someone, then frame Duran for the murder by putting his identification cards in the murder victim's pocket.
They stopped at a second empty lot. Once again, they took Duran out and punched and kicked him.3 They said again that they were going to kill him. He replied that, if they killed him, they would never know where defendant's wife was.
They then drove around looking for the shelter, but Duran could not find it. His vision became impaired whenever he had high blood pressure. He told defendant he "couldn't show him where the shelter was at night but [he] could show him in the morning[.]" The other man got a phone call; after that, both he and defendant seemed to calm down.
They drove to defendant's home. Defendant took Duran into a back room, sat him in a chair, and tied him up with an electrical cord. The other man left. Defendant stayed in the room, had a couple of beers, then fell asleep.
Around 5:00 a.m., defendant untied Duran; he explained that the other people in the house were about to get up, and he ordered Duran not to talk to them. Defendant went back to sleep. Around 7:00 a.m., Duran woke defendant up so he could take him to where his wife was. Defendant drove his pickup truck and Duran directed him to the shelter.
When they got there, defendant stayed in his truck while Duran located defendant's wife. Defendant and his wife talked for about three minutes. Then people from the shelter came out and told defendant to leave, or else they would call the police.
Defendant and Duran got back into the truck. About five minutes later, as they were driving, defendant's wife called Duran's phone. Defendant answered, then put Duran on the line. Duran told her to go home. Defendant then drove Duran back home. Duran asked for his identification cards back. Defendant refused, unless Duran gave him his Social Security card, which Duran would not do. Defendant told Duran not to call the police.
At first, Duran left town, because he was afraid. On September 26, 2014, however — one day later — he contacted the police, because he was concerned about defendant's threat to frame him.
Duran told the police that he had known defendant's wife for about a year. He said defendant punched him, in the body, "several times." He did not say that defendant kidnapped him, threatened to kill him, or took any money from him. His only visible injuries were a cut on his chin, a cut on his left hand, and bruising near his armpit.
On September 30, 2014, the police interviewed Duran again. Once again, he omitted "a number of things" that he testified to at trial.4
On October 1, 2014, the police interviewed defendant. Defendant admitted going to Duran's home. He said a second man drove him there.
According to defendant, Duran lied to him, saying, "I don't know your wife." Defendant was angry and "hit him like maybe three [times]." Duran hit him back. Defendant accidentally broke Duran's cell phone.
Defendant denied kidnapping Duran. Rather, Duran agreed to show him where his wife was. However, Duran was still lying; he would not give defendant the address and made him drive "all over." Thus, defendant punched Duran once.
They went to defendant's house. When defendant had to leave to take the second man home, he tied Duran up — with Duran's consent — for five or ten minutes, so Duran would not run away and "do something" to defendant's wife.
The next morning, Duran "was trying to do the same thing." However, when defendant threatened to go to a police station, Duran took him to where his wife was.
Defendant took Duran's identification cards so he could identify him in case he came back to kill defendant. Defendant told the police where they could find the electrical cord and the identification cards. The police found these items where defendant had said they would be.
THE ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE THAT
DEFENDANT'S WIFE WAS AT A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTER
Defendant contends that the trial court erred by admitting evidence that his wife was at a domestic violence shelter.
Defense counsel filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence that defendant's wife was staying at a domestic violence shelter, arguing that it was more prejudicial than probative. (Evid. Code, § 352.)
The prosecutor responded, "If [the] defense were to have their way, you have a case where the jury would hear that a man took [defendant's] wife and children . . . to some undisclosed location and then when that husband perhaps rightfully . . . said 'Where is my family?' would not show them where they were." He added,
The trial court ruled that the evidence was "not unduly prejudicial." It added: It concluded: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial