People v. Pellecer
| Decision Date | 18 September 2018 |
| Docket Number | B280333 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAVIER PELLECER, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA417246)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Katherine Mader, Judge. Affirmed.
Joseph Shipp, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Rama R. Maline, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________ In an information filed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, defendant and appellant Javier Pellecer and codefendant Wayne Gray (Gray) were charged with two counts of murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); counts 2 & 3).1 Defendant was also charged with being an accessory after the fact to murder in violation of section 32 (count 4). Codefendants Gray, Jerry Wilson (Wilson), and Leon Panting (Panting) were separately charged with murder in count 1.2 As to counts 1 through 3, it was alleged that a principal personally used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (b), personally and intentionally discharged a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (c), personally and intentionally discharged a firearm that proximately caused great bodily injury or death within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (d), and were committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang with the specific intent to promote, further, and assist in criminal conduct by gang members. (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C).) Special circumstances were alleged that defendant and his codefendants had committed multiple murders within the meaning of section 190.2, subdivision (a)(3), and that the codefendants killed the named victim in count 1while lying in wait, within the meaning of section 190.2, subdivision (a)(15).
Defendant pled not guilty and denied the special allegations.
Defendant was tried separately.
The jury found defendant guilty as charged. It also found the firearm and gang allegations to be true. The trial court sentenced defendant to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) plus 25 years to life on count 2 and 15 years to life plus 25 years to life on count 3. It stayed the sentence on count 4. Various fines were imposed, and defendant was given presentence custody credit.
Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal.
We affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Prosecution's Evidence
The October 6, 2008, Murders of Columbus Campbell (Campbell) and Kavette Watson (Watson)
The parties stipulated that Campbell was a Rollin 60's Crips gang member with the moniker "Eddie Boy."
On October 6, 2008, at approximately 12:30 a.m., Kimberly Ramirez (Ramirez) and a man were talking inside a park in the vicinity of 3415 West 63rd Street in Los Angeles. As they exited their car, someone fired several gunshots from behind them. Ramirez ducked. She saw someone wearing dark clothing shoot at a parked white Mercedes Benz. The shooter then got into a dark colored "Nissan of some sort" that was parked next to the victims' car. The Nissan then drove away.
Campbell had been sitting in the driver's seat; he was deceased from gunshot wounds at the scene.3 Watson, who was 16 years old, had been sitting in the front passenger seat; she was transported to the hospital with gunshot wounds, and she later died from her injuries.4
Los Angeles Police Department Detective Ernesto Mendoza, who was assigned to the criminal gang homicide division, responded to the crime scene. He recovered 11 .40-caliber casings from the Mercedes Benz.
Detective Mendoza later determined that defendant owned a blue Nissan Altima. He drove by defendant's residence and saw the vehicle. On November 5, 2008, he directed officers to conduct surveillance on defendant. That day, defendant was detained.5 His vehicle was impounded. Later that day, defendant was released.
Police Interview of Crystal Davis (Davis)
Davis lived in the same neighborhood as defendant. She and codefendant Gray had a child together.
Detective Mendoza interviewed Davis on January 20, 2009, about the death of Eddie Boy. She said that codefendant Graywas a Rollin 60's Crips gang member and had the nickname "Domer." Davis was present when Campbell and Gray got into an argument and fight in an apartment complex in September 2008. Campbell "blind-sided" Gray and hit him in the face; Gray suffered a cut above his eye.6
Gray lived about one and one-half miles from the scene of the double homicide. After the murders of Campbell and Watson, he never left his house.
June 2, 2013, Murder of Westby
The parties stipulated that Westby was murdered on June 2, 2013, as a result of multiple gunshot wounds.
Los Angeles Police Department Detective John Jamison arrested Wilson, Gray, and Panting for the murder of Westby. Los Angeles Police Department Detective Eric Crosson told Detective Jamison that someone had assisted those men in disposing of the murder weapon.
Resumption of the Investigation into the Murders of Campbell and Watson
In 2013, Los Angeles Police Department Detectives Miguel Gutierrez and Crosson were assigned to investigate the homicides of Campbell and Watson. Detective Gutierrez requested surveillance on defendant. On October 16, 2013, defendant was detained and brought into an interview room at the police station. Detective Gutierrez also set a "jail operation" in place, whereby a confidential informant (CI)7 would be placedin a cell with a person that the police believe committed a crime so that the suspect would "talk and maybe confess about the crime."
Detective Gutierrez then interviewed defendant, and the interview was recorded.8 During the interview, Detective Gutierrez wanted to "stimulate" defendant so that he would talk about the crime with the CI. Therefore, he told defendant that he (defendant) had loaned his car to the shooter and that his car was used in the shooting. Detective Gutierrez also told defendant about the motive that the shooter had for the shooting (a fight with the victim). And, Detective Gutierrez gave defendant a general location and date and time of the double homicide. Defendant was then placed in a jail cell with the CI.
Defendant's Recorded Conversation with the CI
The CI asked defendant what he was charged with. Defendant replied, "The ultimate" and "187." The CI asked defendant how long ago the crimes occurred, and defendant replied "Five years ago." Defendant then said that the "[s]ame motherf***er" just did some "sh**" this year, "in June." Defendant continued: "But all right like me and him did this one way back then, f*** I, I had nothing to do with this one right now."
Defendant and the CI then talked about defendant getting picked up after five years. The CI told defendant that the police probably had his car "branded," but could not put him in the vehicle. Defendant replied that he had put paper plates on thecar and after he "did the . . . job," he put the regular plates back on.
The CI next told defendant: Defendant responded, "All of them are gone." Defendant explained that he sold it to a whole other neighborhood, approximately 30 minutes away.
As their conversation continued, defendant told the CI that his "homeboy" called him and asked him to pick him up. The man went to defendant's car and said, "'hey man let's go do this little . . .'" and defendant went with him.
The following exchange then occurred:
Defendant then indicated that he did not care about the male victim, but was bothered by the fact that the second victim was a 16-year-old girl.
The CI then asked defendant what he did when his friend jumped out of the car "to do that." Defendant replied, The CI asked where the motel was, and defendant said "[o]n 63rd and Crenshaw."
Next the CI asked defendant about "[t]he heat from back then." Defendant stated that it was gone "two days after" the shooting. Defendant then admitted that he "got rid of this one for him too."
Later in the conversation, defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial