Opinion
C050123
4-19-2007
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SURJEET SINGH PARHAR, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
A jury convicted defendant of car burglary and receiving stolen property. On appeal, defendant asserts the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions, the abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the proper number of custody credits, and the court security fee must be stricken because it was based on a nonexistent statute. We conclude the judgment and the abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the proper statutory basis for the court security fee and the proper number of days of custody credit, respectively. We also conclude that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions.
PROCEDURE
The district attorney charged defendant with second degree burglary of a vehicle (victim: Veronica Lemus), three counts of receiving stolen property (victims: Veronica Lemus, Steven Banks, and Bessie Lee). A jury found defendant guilty of second degree burglary of a vehicle and two of the three receiving stolen property counts. It was unable to reach a verdict concerning the receiving stolen property count with Bessie Lee as the victim. The court declared a mistrial as to that count and later dismissed it on the district attorneys motion.
The trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of three years for the second degree burglary of a vehicle. It imposed but stayed the middle term of two years as to one receiving stolen property count and imposed a concurrent three-year upper term for the other receiving stolen property count. Based on these convictions, the trial court found defendant violated probation on prior vehicle theft and evading a peace officer convictions. The court therefore imposed the middle term of two years for each of those convictions, to be served concurrently with the burglary term. Finally, the court dismissed four other complaints against defendant on the district attorneys motion.
FACTS
In the morning on Saturday, October 2, 2004, Linda White, who lived in an upstairs apartment, observed a blue car with a black convertible top driving slowly in the parking lot of the apartment complex. Later, she saw that someone was trying to break into her Ford Explorer. Lawrence White, Lindas husband, ran to the landing of the stairway. He observed two dark-skinned men in the blue convertible — one in the drivers seat and one in the backseat. Defendant is dark-skinned. The driver of the blue convertible yelled, "get into the car or come on, lets go." Mr. White called the police. The blue convertible began to move. Mr. White saw Jason Prasad, a codefendant in defendants trial, jump out of the Whites Ford Explorer. Mr. White chased Prasad a short distance then stopped.
Responding to a radio dispatch about Mr. Whites call and traveling in the direction of the apartment complex, Deputy Sheriff Darin Griem saw a blue convertible matching the description Mr. White had given. The car accelerated rapidly. After a high-speed chase, the car turned into a side street. By the time Deputy Griem reached the street, the car was parked in a parking lot. The driver of the car ran south, and two others entered a business. Deputy Griem approached the business but could not see the subjects inside. By radio, he reported to other arriving deputies what he had observed. About one minute later, Deputy Brian Prehoda reported over the radio that he had stopped the driver.
Deputy Prehoda had heard Deputy Griems report of where the blue convertible was stopped and in which direction the driver had run. He saw defendant running southbound from where the car was stopped, so he detained defendant. Defendant had a key ring with several keys on it. He also had a case for CDs that would fit on a cars visor. In his pocket was a plastic knob from an automobile. Between the blue convertible and the place where defendant was detained, there were several CDs scattered in the grass, mud, and parking lot. The knob from defendants pocket fit where a knob was missing in the blue convertible.
Another deputy found and arrested Prasad in the same area. Mr. White made an in-field identification of the blue convertible and Prasad.
Back at the apartment complex, a deputy noticed that the car close to the Whites Explorer had also been broken into. He contacted the owner, Veronica Lemus. Lemus checked her car and reported that there were items missing from her car. At 3 a.m. on the date of the incident, Lemus had walked past her car and noticed nothing amiss. She identified items in the blue convertible as hers. She also identified the CDs and case in defendants possession and the CDs scattered along his path from the blue convertible as hers.
A search of the blue convertible also revealed DMV paperwork. Based on the deputies discovery of the paperwork, a deputy telephoned Steven Banks and asked whether anything was missing from his car. He replied that nothing was missing, but later, when he went to his car, he found the door ajar. The glove box was open and his registration and license paperwork were missing. He was also missing a club used for checking tire pressure.
DISCUSSION
I
Sufficiency of Evidence
Defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction for second degree burglary of Victoria Lemuss car and the receiving stolen property conviction with Steven Banks as victim. The contention is without merit.
"[W]e review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence — that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value — from which a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.]" (People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1212.)
A. Burglary
Although defendant claims the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for burglarizing Victoria Lemuss car, he does not discuss the elements of burglary, nor does he explain what element or elements the prosecution failed to prove. Apparently, he does not claim no burglary occurred. Instead, he argues that the conclusion he and his cohorts were the perpetrators is too speculative. We disagree.
A few hours before the blue convertible arrived at the apartment complex, nothing had happened to Lemuss car. The blue convertible was observed in the area of Lemuss car after 7:30 a.m. the same morning. One of the occupants, Prasad, was seen breaking into the Whites Explorer. The blue convertible was spotted by Deputy Griem soon after it left the apartment complex. After a pursuit, the blue convertible stopped and the driver ran away. Defendant was detained running from the area where the car stopped in the direction the driver ran. He had some of Lemuss belongings from her car and other belongings were found between where defendant was detained and the blue convertible. Prasad was also found close to the blue convertible after the pursuit.
When a person is found in possession of recently stolen property, only slight corroboration is required to support a conviction involving the theft of that property. (People v. Gamble (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 446, 453.) Although based on inferences, the evidence corroborating defendants involvement in the burglary of Lemuss car is strong. The blue convertible from which he ran was in the parking lot of the apartment complex. An occupant of the blue convertible was seen breaking into one car, leading to an inference that the occupants of the blue convertible were also responsible for the burglary of Lemuss nearby car. This evidence supports the conclusion defendant was involved in the burglary of Lemuss car and is sufficient to sustain the burglary conviction.
Defendant argues that the burglary of Lemuss car could have taken place before the blue convertible arrived in the apartment complex parking lot. The inferences, however, necessary to finding that the blue convertible was involved are reasonable. Defendant also argues that only speculation ties him to the blue convertible. Mr. and Mrs. White could not identify defendant as one of the men in the blue convertible. Neither did Deputy Griem identify defendant as the driver he saw running from the area of the blue convertible. Also, none of the keys found in defendants possession fit the trunk of the blue convertible. Nonetheless, the discovery of defendant running from the area where the blue convertible stopped, with a knob that fit the blue convertible, and with items the jury could have inferred came from the blue convertible, was sufficient to connect defendant to the blue convertible.
Defendant attacks the conclusion he was involved in the burglary because it contains an inference based on another inference. He states: "One must infer that the burglary of Ms. Lemuss car was committed by the men in the blue convertible, and then one must infer that [defendant] was one of the men in that blue convertible." While a series of inferences may, at some point, become mere speculation, "a judgment or order may be supported by substantial evidence based upon inferences drawn from inferences, even though there is opposing direct testimony. [Citation.]" (Louis & Diederich, Inc. v. Cambridge European Imports, Inc. (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1574, 1584.) The inferences discussed above were reasonable.
B. Receiving Stolen Property
Defendant rests his argument concerning the sufficiency of the evidence of the receiving stolen property charge entirely on his claim that the evidence connecting him to the blue convertible was insubstantial. As noted above, the evidence was sufficient to connect defendant to the blue convertible. Since the property belonging to Steven Banks was found in the blue convertible, which had been involved in a car burglary enterprise, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the receiving stolen property conviction.
II
Abstract of Judgment
During sentencing, the trial court awarded presentence custody credits for both the case involving the new convictions (04F08685) and the probation violation (03F04055). Later, the trial court considered defendants ex parte motion to correct the custody credits and determined, among other things, that 213 days of total credit should have been awarded for the probation violation (03F04055). The court directed the clerk to issue an amended abstract of judgment. When the clerk issued the amended abstract of judgment, however, the abstract stated defendant received 28 total days of custody credit for the probation violation, not 213.
Defendant contends, and the Attorney General agrees, we must direct the clerk of the superior court to correct the amended abstract of judgment to reflect properly the total custody credits for the probation violation (03F04055). We will order the correction.
III
Court Security Fee
Also during sentencing, the trial court ordered defendant to pay a $20 court security fee of "pursuant to 1416 . . . ." Defendant observes that there is no code containing a section "1416" that supports the imposition of this fee. While he concedes that Penal Code section 1465.8 provides for a mandatory $20 court security fee, he contends we cannot amend the judgment to reflect the imposition of this fee because relying on "1416" was judicial error, not clerical error. To the contrary, it is clear that the trial court simply misspoke when imposing the court security fee. (See People v. Winkler (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 750, 757 [refusing to impose judgment as stated when court obviously misspoke].) We therefore will order correction of the judgment to reflect the court security fee was imposed pursuant to Penal Code section 1465.8.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The matter is remanded to correct the judgment to reflect that the court security fee was imposed pursuant to Penal Code section 1465.8 and to correct the amended abstract of judgment to reflect 213 total days of custody credit in case No. 03F04055. The superior court is further directed to forward a copy of the amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
We concur:
MORRISON, J.
HULL, J.