People v. Vargas
| Decision Date | 29 July 2014 |
| Docket Number | B245910 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RODOLFO ANTHONY VARGAS and ANTHONY MICHAEL VARGAS, Defendants and Appellants. |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. MA056093)
APPEALS from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. John Murphy, Commissioner. Modified and affirmed with directions as to Rodolfo Anthony Vargas; reversed as to Anthony Michael Vargas.
Carlo Andreani, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Rodolfo Anthony Vargas.
Janet Uson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Anthony Michael Vargas.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Robert M. Snider, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Rodolfo Anthony Vargas (Rodolfo) and Anthony Michael Vargas (Anthony)1 appeal from the judgments entered following a jury trial in which they were convicted of first degree burglary.
Anthony contends there was insufficient evidence of entry and intent to support his conviction. We agree there was insufficient evidence to support a finding Anthony personally intended to commit larceny when he entered the victims' mobile home. The prosecutor limited his case to theories that each defendant was a direct perpetrator, not an aider and abettor, and that each defendant's intent was to commit theft. Although Anthony made a slight entry through a bedroom window in his relatives' mobile home in the early hours of the morning, he did not take or attempt to take any property, he did not flee upon discovery but instead identified himself, said he was looking for his cousin who lived there, argued with his uncle, and attempted to enter another window in full view of his uncle and his uncle's wife, who was on the phone with a 911 dispatcher. In addition, Anthony's cousin told responding law enforcement officers Anthony had texted him saying he was at the mobile home and wanted to hang out with the cousin. Accordingly, we reverse Anthony's conviction.
Rodolfo contends the trial court reduced the prosecutor's burden of proof by misstating the reasonable doubt standard. The court's inclusion of an alternative definition of reasonable doubt in an introductory comment during voir dire was highly inadvisable but did not reduce the burden of proof because the court repeatedly instructed the jury with the correct standard and included the correct standard in the written instructions it provided to jurors for use during their deliberations.
Rodolfo contends the trial court erred by admitting gang evidence. We disagree. The court admitted very limited evidence that was highly relevant to the credibility of areluctant witness's testimony and immediately instructed the jury on the limited admissibility of the evidence.
Rodolfo contends the trial court erred by failing to instruct on aiding and abetting principles. We disagree. Although aiding and abetting principles were relevant to Anthony's liability, they were irrelevant with respect to Rodolfo, whose liability was premised on his own entry into the mobile home and theft of a shotgun from within it.
Rodolfo contends the on-bail enhancement was not supported by sufficient evidence. We agree. The trial court took judicial notice that bail had been "set" in another case, but no evidence, stipulation, or even judicial notice established that Rodolfo had actually been released on bail and that he remained on bail at the time of the burglary charged in this case. Moreover, the appellate record indicates bail in the other case was set after the date of the charged offense in this case. Accordingly, we strike the on-bail enhancement finding.
Defendants are the nephews of Miguel Garcia Vargas (Miguel). Miguel testified he did not see defendants for 13 or 14 years after defendants' father (Miguel's brother) moved away, then died. He had seen Rodolfo several times in the months before the charged offense, and Miguel's son Cesar Garcia (Cesar) had maintained a relationship with Rodolfo, but not Anthony.
On May 1, 2012,2 Miguel and his wife, Lillian Ocasio (Lillian), lived with Cesar in a mobile home in Lancaster. Lillian testified a noise awakened her around 1:00 a.m. She noticed the screen had been removed from the window and the window had been opened. She saw a young man she recognized as Miguel's younger "cousin" trying tocome through the window. At trial Lillian identified Anthony as the man who tried to come through the window. Lillian awakened Miguel.
Miguel testified that after Lillian awakened him, he noticed the curtains were "big." Then he noticed two feet, followed by "knees through the window." The person's hands were "holding to the window." Miguel said, "Hell, no," and pushed the person out. The person was then standing outside Miguel's bedroom window. Miguel asked him who he was and he replied, "Anthony." Anthony resembled Miguel's brother, and Miguel realized the intruder was his nephew Anthony. Miguel testified he also knew it was Anthony "because the day before, they told me Anthony was coming to see us."
Anthony, while still holding onto the window, began saying derogatory things about Miguel and his family. Miguel argued with him for five to ten minutes. Anthony also said, " " Miguel told Anthony Cesar was not there. While speaking with Anthony, Miguel saw Rodolfo in the street, near a silver Mazda that was parked alongside the mobile home.
While arguing with Anthony, Miguel heard a noise from Cesar's bedroom and told Lillian to investigate. Lillian testified she heard "a commotion" in Cesar's room. She looked in through "a crack at the door" and saw the window in Cesar's room was wide open and the screen had been removed. She saw a dark figure lift an object about three feet long from the bed and climb out the window with it.
Miguel testified Cesar approached on foot and announced that the police were coming. Both Anthony and Rodolfo "went after" Cesar. Cesar ran to a neighbor's home.
Lillian phoned 911 and spoke to the dispatcher. A recording of that call was played at trial. She explained she told the dispatcher she did not know who the people were "to protect [herself]." She later testified she was reluctant to testify and to identify defendants because "family members" had said defendants were "gang related." When asked which gang, she simply testified, "Mexican."
Miguel testified Anthony went to the kitchen window while Lillian was on the phone with the 911 dispatcher. Anthony said, but Miguelrefused. Anthony then attempted to enter through the kitchen window. "[P]arts" of Anthony's body actually came through the window into the kitchen. Miguel tried to close the kitchen window.
While Lillian was still on the phone with the 911 dispatcher, Cesar entered the mobile home and announced someone had stolen his shotgun from his bedroom. Cesar then spoke to the dispatcher.
Cesar testified he was supposed to go to Rodolfo's house that night to give him "cigarettes and stuff," but he went instead to a bar and a friend's mobile home in the same park. He was drunk. When Cesar was walking back toward his own mobile home he saw his neighbor and the defendants. The defendants were "just chilling" and "playing catch" with a football. Cesar hopped a neighbor's fence to get a quart of beer, and the neighbor said he was going to phone the police. Cesar got his beer, then went home. He denied that he was scared.
Cesar denied seeing defendants in the mobile home and explained he only repeated to the dispatcher what Miguel had told him. He admitted, however, his shotgun was missing and he was angry about that. Although he claimed he had no memory of speaking to the dispatcher, he testified he told the dispatcher, "I ain't no snitch."
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Deputy Michael Spears responded to the burglary call. He testified Cesar said he had received a text message from Anthony saying Anthony was at Cesar's home and wanted to hang out. As Cesar returned home he saw Rodolfo coming out of his bedroom window, then saw Anthony and Rodolfo walking down the driveway from Cesar's mobile home. Cesar said he talked to defendants and they began to argue with him and yell at him. Cesar said he became frightened, so he ran and hid at a neighbor's home. When Cesar returned home, he noticed his shotgun was missing. Spears testified Cesar did not appear to be drunk and Spears detected no odor of alcohol emanating from Cesar.
Spears testified Miguel said he had seen Rodolfo in Cesar's bedroom. At trial Miguel denied this referred to the May 1 incident and testified Rodolfo had broken into Cesar's bedroom in the mobile home "a couple of times before this incident."
Miguel and Cesar gave Spears defendants' names and Miguel gave another responding deputy directions to Rodolfo's home, which was approximately 1.5 to 2 miles from Cesar's mobile home.
Deputies went to Rodolfo's home. Defendants were standing outside with two women, but refused the deputies' command to approach. Although the deputies were aiming guns at defendants, defendants yelled at the deputies that they had not done anything and went inside the house. Spears and about seven other deputies arrived. After about 30 minutes, deputies managed to detain defendants,...
To continue reading
Request your trial