People v. Venegas
| Decision Date | 06 March 2012 |
| Docket Number | A130495 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ADAM MICHAEL VENEGAS, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCR277013)
A jury convicted appellant Adam Michael Venegas of unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle and receiving stolen property. (Former Pen. Code,1 § 496, subd. (a); former Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a).)2 Sentenced to two years in state prison, he appeals. Venegas's primary claim of error on appeal is that (1) insufficient evidence supports his conviction for unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle. He also contends that (2) he was deprived of notice of the nature of this charge against him; (3) the denial of his motion for severance resulted in gross unfairness at trial; and (4) various instructional errors were made. We affirm the judgment.
On Thursday, June 10, 2010,3 Louis Dupont left his Suisun City home for a long weekend. He spent most weekends at his home in Nevada, living at the Suisun City house only during the work week. When he returned home on Sunday, June 13, he discovered that his 1996 GMC Yukon truck was missing from his driveway and that his home had been ransacked. Among the items missing from his home were his Arnold Palmer brand golf clubs, some power tools, a Kodak digital camera, a remote garage door opener, a black motorcycle helmet and keys to the Yukon.4 A locking mechanism on his Harley Davidson motorcycle had been broken, but the motorcycle was not taken.
Dupont reported the losses to Suisun City Police Officer Jonathan Platzner and Police Sergeant Ted Stec that evening. A garage door opener mechanism had been broken, suggesting the point of entry. Latent fingerprints were lifted from the motorcycle and some areas of the garage. Sergeant Stec also learned that the Yukon bore Nevada license plates.
On the afternoon of June 14, Sergeant Stec saw what looked like the missing truck waiting at a Suisun City intersection. As the Yukon moved through the intersection, it came closer to him, allowing the sergeant to see two Caucasian men sitting in the truck. The truck had Nevada plates, prompting him to confirm with his dispatcher that they in fact matched those on Dupont's stolen vehicle. Sergeant Stec followed the Yukon, without activating his lights or siren. After about a half-mile, the Yukon sped up dramatically and the officer gave chase.
The Yukon pulled into the driveway of an apartment complex, where the two men—later identified as appellant Adam Michael Venegas and Bobby Joe Brewer III— fled from the still-moving truck. As the two men ran together into the apartment complex, Brewer's progress was briefly interrupted when as he left the vehicle he fell tohis knees. Sergeant Stec lost sight of the men while he made sure that the truck stopped safely, but within 30 minutes, he located them inside one of the apartments. Brewer was in a locked bathroom off the master bedroom and Venegas was found in the bedroom's walk-in closet. Both men were arrested. Brewer had fresh red marks on his knees.5
Police searched the apartment. One bedroom in the apartment had two mattresses in it and a photograph of Brewer. Venegas and Brewer conceded that the bedroom was theirs. The belongings in the small room appeared to be commingled, with indicia belonging to both Brewer and Venegas found there. In that room, the police found a small black nylon bag containing a Kodak digital camera, a remote garage door opener and mail bearing Venegas's name. Later, when police searched the truck, they found a black motorcycle helmet6 and the Yukon keys inside. Latent fingerprints were taken from the truck and some of its contents.
Venegas and Brewer were interviewed by police. Each gave a statement. Venegas was cooperative. He admitted being a passenger in the Yukon, running from it and being chased by police. He fled "home" to the apartment, where he changed clothes. Venegas admitted that the camera was in his bag, but did not admit that the camera belonged to him.
In his statement, Brewer first denied everything, including driving the Yukon. He said that Venegas stole the car. He first said that Venegas was driving the Yukon at the time of the June 14 incident; later, Brewer admitted that he was the driver on that date. He acknowledged seeing a police officer behind the Yukon, which he and Venegas left. He told police that before the incident at the apartment complex, he had driven the Yukon to a casino. He also identified the bag in which the camera was found as belonging to Venegas, noting that his papers were also in the bag. He admitted that his fingerprintsand those of Venegas would be found on the camera, but asserted that his prints would not be found at Dupont's residence.
In July, Venegas was charged by information with the unlawful driving or taking and receiving stolen property. In the same information, Brewer was charged with these two counts as well as one count of first degree residential burglary. (§ 459; former § 496, subd. (a); former Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a).) Venegas was alleged to have suffered three prior convictions—two for forgery and one for cultivation of marijuana.7 (Former § 667.5, subd. (b);8 see § 470, subd. (d); see also former Health & Saf. Code, § 11358 [Stats. 1976, ch. 1139, § 72, p. 5082].) The information also alleged that Brewer had suffered numerous prior convictions. (See §§ 666.5, 667.5, subd. (b).) Venegas pled not guilty and denied the prior prison terms allegation. He moved to sever his trial from Brewer's trial, without success.
At trial, Dupont testified about the missing truck and the various items that were taken from his home. He told the jury that when his truck was returned to him about a week after police recovered it, the Yukon's odometer suggested that it had been driven about 400 miles since he had left it. He testified that the keys returned to him with his truck were his keys. Dupont identified the camera taken from Venegas's bag as his from photographs stored in it.9
Sergeant Stec told the jury about taking the Dupont burglary report, sighting the Yukon the next day, and following it to the apartment complex where it was abandoned.In court, he identified Brewer as the driver and Venegas as the passenger of the Yukon. He told the jury that the Yukon was still running when the two men fled from it. The keys—not some other device to start the truck—were in the ignition when he found the truck.
A Fairfield pawnbroker testified that on the afternoon of June 12, one of his employees purchased a set of Arnold Palmer golf clubs and a power saw. The transaction required the seller to provide photo identification and a thumbprint. A fingerprint expert testified that the thumbprint on the pawnbroker's records belonged to Venegas.
Another fingerprint expert testified that fingerprints found on Dupont's motorcycle saddlebag and on the Yukon belonged to Brewer. No latent fingerprints were linked to Venegas. The jury also heard parts of Brewer's interview with police.
At the close of the prosecution's case, Venegas moved for acquittal on both charges—receiving stolen property and unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle. (§ 1118.1.) Defense counsel argued that there was no evidence that Venegas ever drove the Yukon and insufficient evidence that he participated in its taking to warrant a conviction of unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle. She also reasoned that there was no evidence that Venegas aided and abetted Brewer's unlawful driving or taking of the vehicle. The prosecutor countered that there was evidence of Venegas's involvement in the underlying burglary, such that a reasonable jury could find that he aided and abetted the initial taking of the vehicle. Acknowledging that this theory might not persuade the trial court, the prosecutor also argued that there was evidence that, while Venegas was a passenger in the Yukon, he knew that it had been stolen. He cited Venegas's act of fleeing from the vehicle when the police were in sight as evidence tending to support an inference of his knowledge that the vehicle had been stolen. The trial court denied the motion to acquit. On the unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle count, it reasoned that the prosecution had offered circumstantial evidence that Venegas constructively possessed stolen goods—including the vehicle—and that his conduct evidenced a consciousness of guilt.
Brewer testified in his own defense. He admitted being at Dupont's house with Dupont's tenant on the weekend of the burglary. Brewer had been to the house many times—always on a weekend—and believed that it belonged to Dupont's tenant. He suggested that the tenant had burglarized the house. Dupont himself suspected that the tenant might have been involved in an earlier spate of burglaries.10 Brewer admitted driving the Yukon, but told the jury that he did not know the Yukon was stolen. Brewer told the jury that Dupont's tenant led him to believe that the Yukon belonged to the tenant, who loaned the truck to Brewer on June 11. The tenant gave Brewer keys to the Yukon. At the house, Brewer had admired a motorcycle, touching parts of it, including a saddlebag. He found the camera in the Yukon. His nephew brought the camera into the apartment.
Brewer also testified that he and Venegas were cousins. Sometimes, he slept at his grandmother's apartment in Venegas's room. He kept a few things in a bag in the room. On June 12, he let Venegas drive the Yukon to Fairfield. Brewer rode along with him. Venegas had...
To continue reading
Request your trial