People v. Mireles
| Decision Date | 24 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | F077349 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FRANK MIRELES, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
OPINIONAPPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. John F. Vogt, Judge.
Paul Couenhoven, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen A. McKenna and Kimberly A. Donohue, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Appellant and defendant Frank Mireles was charged and convicted of murdering his friend, Jose "Tony" Rodriguez, after stealing property from his house, and his conviction is supported by substantial evidence. On July 6, 2012, Rodriguez's family found his body lying on the floor of the den in his house, just four hours after they had left him. Rodriguez had been repeatedly hit in the head with a ball-peen hammer and died from multiple blunt force injuries. The bloody hammer that contained Rodriguez's DNA was found hidden between the mattress and box spring in the master bedroom.
Rodriguez's neighbor reported that defendant Frank Mireles, a mutual friend, was the last person seen at the house as Rodriguez's family left. A short time after Rodriguez was murdered, defendant drove to his brother's home, and his girlfriend saw him throw a bag into a trashcan; the bag contained property taken from Rodriguez's house. Defendant and his girlfriend returned to their apartment, and defendant threw away his blood-stained pants and shoes in a garbage dumpster; Rodriguez's DNA was on the pants and shoes. The dumpster also contained more of Rodriguez's property. The day after the murder, defendant went to the "Gold Rush" store and sold jewelry taken from Rodriguez's house.
When defendant was initially questioned by the police, he said everything was fine when he left Rodriguez's house, and he did not know who would kill him. After he was arrested for the murder, defendant claimed Rodriguez gave him some property to try and sell for him. He said he briefly left Rodriguez's house and found Rodriguez's body when he returned. He claimed to hear people talking in the house and fled and threw away his bloody clothes and some of the property Rodriguez gave him to sell because he did not want to get involved.
Defendant was charged and convicted of first degree felony murder based on residential burglary, with a felony-murder special circumstance also based on burglary. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
On appeal, defendant argues his conviction for first degree felony murder and the felony-murder special circumstance must be reversed because of insufficient evidence of burglary, since he was invited into Rodriguez's house, and there was no evidence he intended to steal anything when he entered the house. Defendant further argues the court failed to give the required instructions on the felony-murder special circumstance, and the instructions that were given violate the federal and state Constitutions.
We will order the parole revocation fine stricken and otherwise affirm.
Tony Rodriguez and his former wife, Angie Perez, lived in separate homes and had a good relationship. Rodriguez shared custody of his 18-year-old stepson and 12-year-old stepdaughter with Ms. Perez. The children regularly stayed with Rodriguez at his house in Sanger.
Rodriguez's house had a master bedroom, a separate bedroom for his stepdaughter, and a den. When the children stayed with him, Rodriguez slept in the den so that his son could use the master bedroom. The house also had a "backroom" that was like a workshop, where Rodriguez stored things in plastic containers and boxes stacked up in the room. Rodriguez usually hung around with his friends in the backroom/workshop.
Rodriguez was going to turn the back room/workshop into a bedroom for his stepson. However, Rodriguez was having financial problems and was afraid he was going to lose his house.
Steven Camacho and his grandfather lived next door to Rodriguez. Camacho and Rodriguez were good friends and often got together at each other's homes.
About two years before the homicide, Rodriguez introduced Camacho to defendant. Camacho, Rodriguez, and defendant became friends and hung out at each other's homes. Camacho and Rodriguez never had any problems with defendant. Ms. Perez and the children knew defendant and that he was Rodriguez's friend.
Javier Harvey Davila, Rodriguez's friend and another neighbor, also knew defendant. Davila occasionally used methamphetamine with Rodriguez and defendant. Davila testified Rodriguez had sold methamphetamine in the 1990s, but he was not selling drugs at the time of the murder. Davila testified that shortly before the homicide, Rodriguez said he was getting tired of defendant showing up at his house all the time.
Davila had known defendant since they were in school, and they worked together at a lumber company. Davila testified defendant had a temper and got mad easily, based on experiences when they worked together. Defendant lost his job when he crashed a forklift into a garage door and failed a drug test. Defendant had financial problems and lost his house.
Camacho testified that at the time of the homicide, defendant was going through a divorce. He was looking for a job and was having financial problems; he lost his house and needed to find another place to live. Defendant was living with his girlfriend in Visalia.
Rodriguez's two stepchildren spent the night of July 5, 2012, at Rodriguez's house. On the morning of July 6, 2012, they had breakfast together. Rodriguez went into the backyard and started to mow the lawn. Rodriguez was meticulous about keeping up the house and yard. The stepson testified Rodriguez always put away the lawnmower when he was finished with it. Both children testified no one came to the house while they were with Rodriguez. Camacho noticed Rodriguez's stepchildren were at Rodriguez's house.
Around 1:00 p.m., Rodriguez sent a text message to his brother-in-law that said: "... I might have [to] get out of here sooner than I thought so I'll be talking to you aboutleaving some things over there just till I get back on my feet if it's okay?" His brother-in-law replied, "No prob."1
Defendant arrives at Camacho's house
Also, on July 6, 2012, defendant called Camacho and asked if he could stop by his house to use his computer to look for a job. Defendant said he also wanted to see Rodriguez, but he could not reach him. Camacho called Rodriguez and told him that defendant wanted to see him, but defendant was going to hang out at Camacho's house first.
Sometime around 3:00 p.m., defendant parked a white pickup in front of Rodriguez's house and went into Camacho's house. Defendant was wearing a black T-shirt, blue jeans, and running shoes.
Camacho testified that while defendant was at his house, defendant charged his cell phone, used the computer, and asked Camacho if he could borrow $20 for gasoline. He also asked whether Camacho could get him a line or two of crystal methamphetamine. Camacho testified that he used to deal drugs and served time, but he was not involved in that anymore and told defendant he could not help him. As for the money, he told defendant that he had to check his wallet and see how much he had. Camacho and defendant got along fine, and they did not argue.
Defendant goes to Rodriguez's house
Camacho testified that after defendant had been at his house for about one hour, he told defendant to leave. Camacho explained a friend was going to drive over and take Camacho on some errands, and he had to clean up. Camacho believed that it was around4:00 p.m. when defendant took his cell phone, left Camacho's house, and walked to Rodriguez's house.
Just three or four minutes after defendant left, Camacho was about to get into the shower when defendant called and asked if he left his keys there; Camacho said no.2 Camacho testified defendant asked him not to leave on his errands until they talked again, because defendant needed to borrow money for gasoline to get home. Defendant said he was going to try to get the money from his brother.
Ms. Perez picks up the children
It was also around 4:00 p.m. when Ms. Perez arrived at Rodriguez's house to pick up the children because they planned to see a movie in Fresno. She sent a text message to the children that she was there and waiting in her car. The two children left Rodriguez's house and got into their mother's car. Rodriguez went outside and talked with Ms. Perez through her open car window.
In the meantime, Camacho finished his shower, and his grandfather gave him a message that Rodriguez wanted to talk to him. Camacho went outside to look for Rodriguez. Camacho saw Ms. Perez's car, and Rodriguez was leaning into the window and talking to her. Camacho also saw defendant standing on the front porch of Rodriguez's house.3 Camacho tried to get Rodriguez's attention to ask what he wanted. Rodriguez held up his hand and indicated he wanted to keep talking to Ms. Perez. Camacho went back into his own house.
After Ms. Perez and Rodriguez talked, Ms. Perez drove away and took the children to the movie theater in Fresno. Ms. Perez and the children testified they did not see anyone else at the house when they left.
At 4:29 p.m., Rodriguez sent a text message to Ms. Perez that she looked nice, referring to when he saw her; she replied thanks. Rodriguez did not send any more...
To continue reading
Request your trial