People v. Shaisi, H030526 (Cal. App. 10/14/2008)
| Decision Date | 14 October 2008 |
| Docket Number | H030526 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALI REZA SHAISI, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Santa Clara County, Super. Ct. No. CC591346.
Defendant Ali Reza Shaisi1 was convicted of 15 criminal offenses arising from two distinct instances of alleged shoplifting occurring some four months apart. On appeal he contends among other things that the trial court erred by consolidating the charges arising from the two incidents. He contends that the evidence of the earlier offenses was considerably weaker than that of the later offenses, and was unfairly bolstered by the latter, which would not have been admissible in a separate trial of the former. We reject this and several other contentions, and affirm the judgment of conviction.
Employees of Lunardi's Supermarket testified that on May 3, 2005, they observed a man later identified as defendant's father, Jahan Shaisi, pushing around a shopping cart full of large items with a zippered black bag in their midst. This is a technique commonly used by shoplifters to conceal their activities. A store employee notified Henry Carrillo, a head clerk, of the presence of a potential shoplifter. Jahan went through the aisle containing cold medication and quickly left the store.
Carrillo, who was wearing a dark blue Lunardi's uniform, yelled for help and chased Jahan out of the store, closely followed by two other employees, also in uniform. The three of them caught Jahan in the parking lot and pulled him to the ground. Defendant, driving a white SUV, backed rapidly up to the affray, striking and spinning around one of the Lunardi's employees, and coming within inches of the others.
Defendant got out of the vehicle brandishing what witnesses described as a knife. From a distance of two or three feet, he motioned with the knife at the store employees, shouting at them. Carrillo testified that he was close enough to tell that the object was a sharp knife, not a pen. He described defendant as thrusting it towards the workers while shouting "hah hah." Carrillo ordered his fellow employees to back off. They released Jahan and backed away about 10 feet. Defendant and Jahan got into the SUV and drove away.
They left behind the black bag, which was found to contain several boxes of cold and sinus medication. Employees found a corresponding empty gap on the cold medication shelf. Police also found in the bag a court notice bearing Jahan's name and address. They obtained warrants and arrested defendant and his father. No knife was found.
Officer John Campos questioned defendant after the incident. Defendant told him that he had stopped to refuel his truck near Lunardi's and that while he was doing so his father had gone into Lunardi's for a drink. After defendant finished filling the truck, he said, he had driven towards Lunardi's, where he saw several men on top of his father beating him. He got out of his SUV and tried to help his father. The men then backed away, and his father got in the SUV and they left. After they left the scene, said defendant, his father told him the men thought he had stolen something.
Asked by Campos about the use of a knife, defendant insisted that he had only held a silver and black pen. Campos also asked defendant if he knew that his father had a history of involvement in theft. Defendant replied that he did.
Officer Campos testified that there is only one gas station located near Lunardi's, and it has its own convenience store that sells beverages.
On May 11, 2005, the prosecutor filed a complaint charging defendant with (1) second degree burglary; (2) two counts of petty theft with a prior; (3) three counts of assault with a deadly weapon with enhancements for personal use of a deadly weapon; (4) three counts of felony false imprisonment with personal use enhancements; (5) one count of accessory to burglary and petty theft; and (6) one enhancement for committing a felony while out of custody on bail.
On September 5, 2005, security personnel at a Food Maxx store saw defendant, who was wearing a black and white jacket, taking Actifed cold medication off the shelves and placing it in his pockets. Several employees waited in front of the store for defendant to leave. When a loss prevention officer approached defendant to identify himself, defendant fled across the parking lot. Five Food Maxx employees gave chase. According to all five, defendant turned around and pointed a black handgun at them, whereupon they stopped their pursuit. At least one witness thought that defendant seemed to be trying to fire the weapon. One witness thought he heard a clacking noise coming from the gun.
Defendant fled across the street while store employees followed at a distance. He went onto the roof of a building, where he appeared to be trying to load the weapon or get it to work. Police arrived on the scene and saw defendant running on a freeway ramp, where they apprehended him. He had neither his jacket nor any other items reported to have been in his possession. Police searched the area for at least an hour, and for another three hours the next day, but did not find a gun. Nor did they find the missing store merchandise. A store employee checked the shelf for Actifed cold medication and found that it was empty.
After his arrest defendant initially gave a fictitious name to police officers. Questioned by Officer John Marfia, he denied having a gun and said, initially, that he had pointed a cell phone at the store employees. No cell phone had been found on his person. When the officer told him (falsely) that there was a video recording of him displaying a handgun, he said that the object was a lighter shaped like a gun. Although he claimed to have purchased it at a convenience store, he could not give the store's location.
On September 26, 2005, the prosecutor filed a second complaint, charging defendant with four counts of second-degree robbery, each with an enhancement for personal use of a firearm; possession of a firearm by a felon; and stating a false name to a police officer. The complaint was subsequently amended to charge that defendant committed the false identification offense while out on bail on two other cases.
On the first day of trial, the prosecutor filed a written motion to consolidate the two complaints. The court granted the motion that same day, over the defense objection that joint trials would permit the prosecution to bolster a weak case (the Lunardi's incident) with a strong one (the Food Maxx incident). A consolidated information, filed the next day, charged defendant with nine counts arising from the Lunardi's incident and six arising from the Food Maxx incident: second degree burglary (count 1); petty theft with a prior (count 2); assaults with a deadly weapon on three Lunardi's employees (counts 3, 5, 7); three counts of felony false imprisonment involving personal use of a deadly weapon (counts 4, 6, 8); accessory after the fact to burglary and petty theft (count 9); second degree robbery of four Food Maxx employees, with personal use of a firearm (counts 10-13); possession of a firearm by a felon (count 14); and false identification to a peace officer (count 15). The information also included three allegations that defendant was out on bail when he committed both the Lunardi's and Food Maxx offenses.
The jury found defendant guilty as charged on all counts. The court sentenced defendant to 15 years 8 months in prison, plus eight months in an unrelated case.2 Defendant filed this timely appeal.
Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in consolidating the complaint arising from the Lunardi's incident with that arising from the Food Maxx incident because the joint trial of the two sets of crimes was prejudicial. This contention cannot be sustained.
The first question in the consolidation of multiple criminal charges is whether the statutory conditions for such joinder are present. Penal Code section 954 (§ 954) provides that offenses may be jointly charged, or if separately charged may be consolidated, when they are "connected together in their commission," or constitute "different statements of the same offense or two or more different offenses of the same class of crimes or offenses . . . ." The existence or absence of these conditions presents a pure question of law, which we examine independently of the trial court's ruling. (People v. Alvarez (1996) 14 Cal.4th 155, 187-188.) The Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed that "because consolidation or joinder of charged offenses ordinarily promotes efficiency, that is the course of action preferred by the law." (Alcala v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1205, 1220 (Alcala), citing People v. Geier (2007) 41 Cal.4th 555, 578; People v. Stanley (2006) 39 Cal.4th 913, 933; People v. Ochoa (1998) 19 Cal.4th 353, 408-409.)
Here the statutory conditions for joinder are present because the Lunardi's and Food Maxx charges included "the same class of offenses." (§ 954.) The charges arising from the first incident included aggravated assault, while those from the second included robbery. Robbery and assault are both classified as crimes against the person. (Pen. Code, Tit. VIII § 211; Pen. Code, Tit. VIII § 220.) They are considered offenses "of the same class." (People v. Walker (1988) 47 Cal.3d 605, 622; see People v. Musselwhite (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1216, 1243.) Since this case involved assault and robbery counts, the threshold requirement for joinder is satisfied.
The statute has also been construed to "`permit[] joinder of different offenses not related to the same transaction or event "if there is a common element of substantial importance in their commission, for the joinder prevents repetition of evidence and saves time and expense to the state as...
To continue reading
Request your trial