Opinion
G052511
11-21-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANDRE RICARDO PIERSON and DWIGHT LADALE STEPHEN, Defendants and Appellants.
Thomas Owen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Andre Ricardo Pierson. Sharon M. Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Dwight Ladale Stephen. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Collette Cavilier and Andrew Mestman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 13CF2612) OPINION Appeal from judgments of the Superior Court of Orange County, Patrick Donahue, Judge. Affirmed. Thomas Owen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Andre Ricardo Pierson. Sharon M. Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Dwight Ladale Stephen. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Collette Cavilier and Andrew Mestman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Appellants Andre Ricardo Pierson and Dwight Ladale Stephen stand convicted of multiple counts of robbery. On appeal, they do not contest the sufficiency of the evidence to support their convictions, nor do they dispute they were members of a criminal street gang when they committed their crimes. Instead, they maintain there is insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding they committed them for the benefit of or in association with their gang. They also contend the trial court erred in denying their motion to bifurcate the gang allegations, and their attorneys were ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor's description of those allegations in closing argument. Finding appellants' arguments unpersuasive, we affirm the judgments against them.
FACTS
At about ten o'clock one evening, Orange County residents Irwin and Kimberly Goldman were awakened in their home by intruders who ordered them to lie face down on their bed and tied them up with stereo wire. The intruders asked the Goldmans where they kept their guns and valuables and began to ransack their home. At one point, Irwin got loose and looked under his bed for his rifles, but they were not there. Then one of the intruders returned to the bedroom, placed a rifle barrel to Irwin's head and told him to get back on the bed. Fearful for his life, Irwin did as he was told.
The Goldmans did not get a good look at the intruders, but it appeared to them they consisted of a trio of men who were black or dark skinned.
A short time later, the Goldman's 24-year-old daughter Hannah came home to the house. She noticed there was a Porsche Cayenne parked in the area. The vehicle had paper license plates, and Hannah had never seen it before. When she entered the house, she was confronted by a "dark figure" with a rifle and two other men. The men muffled Hannah's screams, took her phone and led her to the bedroom, where they placed her face down between her parents. Then, while one of the men stayed to guard the Goldmans, the other two left the bedroom and rummaged around the house for more things to steal. After a while, the house fell silent. One of the intruders was still keeping an eye on the Goldmans, but eventually he left the house, and the Goldmans escaped through a window. Outside, they heard a neighbor's alarm sounding and saw the police. The Porsche was gone.
As it turned out, while the Goldmans were being guarded in their bedroom, two of the intruders had left their house and broken into a neighbor's residence. Armed with a rifle, the men encountered Leslie Ono, his wife and father-in-law and ordered them to lie face down in their living room. When Ono's sister-in-law came out of her bedroom to see what was going on, the men demanded the family's cash and valuables from her. She led the men to a safe and opened it. After emptying the safe, the men entered the garage, tripping the burglar alarm. They told Ono to turn it off, and when he said he didn't know how, they fled the scene.
The investigation into the robberies led the police to a man named Curtis Robinson. In fact, in the days leading up to the robberies, the police had been surveilling Curtis and tracking his cellphone. During that time, investigators saw Curtis driving a Porsche Cayenne with paper plates and frequenting a Los Angeles hotel. On the day after the robberies, they saw him remove a bag from the Porsche and toss it into a dumpster located in the hotel's parking lot. Upon recovering the bag, the police discovered it contained several items taken in the robberies, including watches and jewelry.
Robinson was charged with the same offenses as appellants. He pled guilty prior to trial.
The next day, police searched the Porsche and found Curtis' phone inside. His phone records revealed he and appellants had made numerous calls to each other before, during and after the robberies. By mapping their cell phone tower coordinates, investigators were able to determine Curtis and appellants had traveled from Los Angeles to Orange County on the night of the robberies and returned to Los Angeles early the next morning.
When interviewed following their arrests, appellants admitted knowing Curtis and admitted they were members of the Van Ness gang (VNG), an African-American criminal street gang from Los Angeles. They denied being in Orange County on the night of the robberies.
The identification evidence was not overwhelming. Other than describing the men who robbed them as being black, the four victims in the Ono robbery were unable to identify them. As for the Goldmans, Irwin and Hannah believed Pierson looked similar to one of their robbers. And although she did not actually pick out anyone from the pretrial lineup she was shown, Kimberly testified she was 90 percent sure the person in the number four position, i.e., Stephen, was one of the robbers. Kimberly could not identify appellants in court, however.
As part of the investigation, the police were also able to extract DNA evidence from a juice container that was found at the Goldman's house after the robberies. Testing revealed the DNA matched parts of Stephen's DNA profile shared by roughly two percent of the population.
At trial, the prosecution called Joshua Medina as an expert on criminal street gangs. Medina provided the testimonial liturgy of gang experts. He testified respect is very important to gangs. Gang members earn respect - what the rest of us would call fear - by committing crimes on behalf of their gang - the more serious the crime, the more respect. Gang crimes not only increase the status of the individual members who commit them, they enhance the prestige of their gang because they send a message to rival gangs and members of the community that their gang is not to be trifled with. Given this dynamic, Medina said gang members will often boast about the crimes they have committed. However, they are not inclined to talk to the police about their gang's criminal activities. In fact, to "snitch" or "rat" on a fellow gang member will often lead to severe adverse consequences.
Testifying further, Medina explained that although gangs typically claim a certain geographic area, they often go outside their territory to commit crimes. For example, gang members in lower income areas will often travel to wealthier communities to commit burglaries. Doing so has the dual advantages of avoiding the local police - who are familiar with the gang's members and activities - and offering the prospect of a handsome payday for the gang.
Regarding the VNG, Medina testified it has been active in South Los Angeles for about 30 years. A subset of the Bloods, the VNG had about 100 members when this case arose, and their primary activities were "burglaries, robberies, possession for sales, possession of handguns, felony evading" and drive-by shootings. For purposes of proving the gang allegations, Medina described two predicate crimes that were committed by VNG members, attempted burglary and felon in possession of a firearm. Appellants were not involved in either of those offenses. However, Medina did say that appellants have had multiple contacts with the police (described in the record as field interviews or street contacts) during which they were with other VNG members. Medina also testified about appellants' multiple tattoos, explaining they demonstrated their allegiance to the VNG. Based on all the information he reviewed before trial, Medina was convinced appellants and Curtis were active members of the VNG when the robberies in this case occurred.
Given a hypothetical question steeped in the facts of the case, Medina was also of the opinion the robberies benefited and were committed in association with the VNG. Regarding the benefit aspect, Medina stated there is an expectation that when gang members commit a crime, money derived from the crime will go back to the gang. Although Medina did not have any specific information that occurred in this case, he surmised the proceeds from the robberies would eventually be funneled back to the VNG's coffers so its members could acquire guns and other items that would enable them to carry out their criminal activities. Medina said the crimes would also shore up the robbers' bona fides as tough guys and enhance the reputation of their gang as a ruthless criminal organization. Also, by committing the robberies together, the perpetrators would have witnesses who could attest to the fact they were "legitimate gangsters."
In describing the associational aspect of the robberies, Medina said that by acting with fellow gang members, the robbers could rest assured they were all on the same page and could trust each another, which increased their chances of success. It really wasn't important which of them carried out which particular task but that they were able to accomplish their common objective by working together. As Medina put it, "They went in together as a team, associating, [as gang members], to commit this crime." "And by associating with each other . . . they [were] associating with the gang because they are the gang."
The defense countered Medina's expert testimony with an expert of their own. Dr. Mitchell Eisen, whose specialty is eyewitness identification and testified about how memory process works and the various factors that influence the accuracy of an eyewitness identification. Suffice it to say, he was skeptical about the reliability of the type of cross-racial identifications the Goldmans made in this case.
The jury was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt appellants participated in the robberies of the Goldmans and the Onos. In addition to convicting them of seven counts of robbery while acting in concert (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (a), 213, subd. (a)(1)(A)), the jury found the robberies were gang related and that appellants unlawfully possessed firearms during their commission (id., at §§ 186.22, subd. (b)(4)(B), 12022.53, subds. (b) & (e)(1), 29800, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court sentenced appellants to 30 years to life in prison for their crimes.
Appellants were also charged with a residential burglary that occurred on the same night and in the same neighborhood as their other crimes. The jury deadlocked on that charge, and it was eventually dismissed.
DISCUSSION
Failure to Bifurcate Gang Allegations
Appellants contend the trial court erred in denying their motion to bifurcate the gang allegations from the underlying charges. We disagree.
Appellants have joined each other's arguments to the extent they are applicable to each other.
For the sake of judicial economy, there is a preference that all charges against a defendant be handled in one proceeding. (Alcala v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1205, 1220.) In cases involving gang allegations, the trial court does have the authority to bifurcate the allegations to avoid the risk of undue prejudice to the defendant. However, as our Supreme Court has explained, "[E]vidence of gang membership is often relevant to, and admissible regarding, the charged offense. Evidence of the defendant's gang affiliation - including evidence of the gang's territory, membership, signs, symbols, beliefs and practices, criminal enterprises, rivalries, and the like - can help prove identity, motive, modus operandi, specific intent, means of applying force or fear, or other issues pertinent to guilt of the charged crime. [Citations.] To the extent the evidence supporting the gang enhancement would be admissible at a trial of guilt, any inference of prejudice would be dispelled, and bifurcation would not be necessary." (People v. Hernandez (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1040, 1049-1050.)
In addition, when, as here, "the evidence sought to be severed relates to a charged offense, the 'burden is on the party seeking severance to clearly establish that there is a substantial danger of prejudice requiring that the charges be separately tried. [Citations.]" (People v. Hernandez, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 1050.) We review severance rulings for an abuse of discretion, meaning absent proof the trial court's ruling exceeded the bounds of reason, we are powerless to disturb it. (Id. at pp. 1050-1051; People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067, 1113.)
The gang evidence in this case established appellants belonged to a Los Angeles gang whose primary activities include robbery, burglary and gun possession. Gang expert Medina testified Los Angeles gangs often commit crimes outside their territory to avoid detection and maximize their profit potential. Medina also spoke to the respect gang members - and their gangs - receive when they commit serious crimes. Indeed, Medina made it clear home-invasion robbery is precisely the type of crime an outfit like the VNG would carry out to bolster its reputation as a ruthless criminal organization. He also indicated gang members have an added advantage when they commit crimes with other members of their gang because they can trust each other and don't have to worry about being betrayed to the police.
Standing alone, this gang evidence certainly would not have been sufficient to convict appellants of the home-invasion robberies that occurred in this case. However, considered in light of all of the other evidence that was presented, the evidence made it more likely that appellants were involved in carrying out those crimes, as compared to individuals with no gang ties. It did so by showing appellants had a compelling motive - beyond personal financial gain - for committing the robberies. Thus, the gang evidence had considerable probative value. (People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 193-194 [gang evidence relevant to prove the defendant had a motive to kill, and was thus the person who shot, the victim]; People v. Samaniego (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1148, 1168 [gang evidence relevant to establish motive for charged crimes and tying appellants to them].)
Appellants argue there was no need for the gang evidence, given they admitted knowing each other and there was other evidence implicating them in the robberies. However, the issue of identification was hotly disputed at trial. Just because there was already some evidence pointing to appellants as the culprits does not mean the prosecution was precluded from presenting additional evidence of their guilt in the form of expert testimony. (See People v. Rogers (2013) 57 Cal.4th 296, 326 [although the circumstantial evidence of the defendant's guilt was strong, the prosecutor had the right to present "all available evidence" to meet its burden of proof].) Notwithstanding the other identification evidence, the gang evidence was relevant and informative because it demonstrated why appellants would be especially interested in committing the type of crimes perpetrated here.
Moreover, balanced against its probative value, the gang evidence was not unduly prejudicial. In describing the predicate crimes needed to prove the gang charges, Medina described offenses that were carried out by VNG members other than appellants. And, compared to the evidence pertaining to the underlying robbery charges, the gang evidence was not especially graphic or inflammatory. Furthermore, the trial judge instructed the jury it could not conclude from the gang evidence that appellants were people of bad character who were disposed to commit crimes, and the prosecutor went out his way to make this point to the jury. In closing argument, he emphasized, "This is not something where anybody is telling you to find [appellants] guilty because they are gang members. I am absolutely not." It appears the jury took these admonishments to heart because it was divided and unable to reach a verdict on the residential burglary charge. (See ante, p. 6, fn. 3.) This indicates that irrespective of the gang testimony, the jury was able to fairly assess the strength of the evidence in deciding the charges against appellants. (See People v. Soper (2009) 45 Cal.4th 759, 784; People v. Williams (2001) 26 Cal.4th 779, 790.)
For all these reasons, we do not believe the trial court erred in denying appellants' motion to bifurcate the gang changes. The court's decision did not constitute an abuse of discretion or render appellants' trial fundamentally unfair.
Sufficiency of the Gang Evidence
Appellants also contend there is insufficient evidence to support the jury's true findings on the gang enhancement allegations. Again, we disagree.
The standard of review for assessing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is "highly deferential." (People v. Lochtefeld (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 533, 538.) Our task is to "review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence . . . from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.]" (People v. Lindberg (2008) 45 Cal.4th 1, 27.) In so doing, we do not reweigh the evidence or reevaluate the credibility of the witnesses who testified at trial; rather, "[w]e presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier of fact reasonably could infer from the evidence. [Citation.] If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact's findings, reversal of the judgment is not warranted simply because the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding. [Citation.]" (Ibid.) "The conviction shall stand 'unless it appears "that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support [it]."' [Citation.]" (People v. Cravens (2012) 53 Cal.4th 500, 508.) The same standard applies when, as here, we are reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a true finding on an enhancement allegation. (People v. Albillar (2010) 51 Cal.4th 47, 59-60 (Albillar).)
Penal Code Section 186.22 authorizes a sentence enhancement when the defendant is convicted of a felony "committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with any criminal street gang, with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members[.]" (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(4)(B).) Appellants do not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the intent requirement of the statute, and the prosecution did not argue appellants committed the subject robberies at the direction of their gang. Thus, the only issue we must decide is whether there is substantial evidence to support the jury's determination the robberies were committed for the benefit of or in association with the VNG.
Appellants contend there is not because the underlying facts of the robberies do not suggest the crimes had any sort of gang connection. For instance, no one in appellants' group flashed gang signs or yelled their gang's name during the robberies, the victims were not members of any gang or targeted out of retaliation, the crimes took place outside of the VNG's claimed territory, and there was no direct evidence the VNG benefited - either financially or in terms of status - from the robberies. Under these circumstances, appellants argue no reasonable jury could find the robberies were gang related. In so arguing, appellants go to great lengths attempting to contrast this case from Albillar, where the California Supreme Court found substantial evidence to support gang enhancement allegations. However, in terms of gang-relatedness, the facts in Albillar were actually quite similar to the facts at hand.
As in our case, the underlying facts in Albillar were not, on their face, particularly indicative of gang involvement. Three members of an Oxnard gang sexually assaulted a teenage acquaintance of theirs in Thousand Oaks. Like appellants here, the defendants in Albillar helped each other carry out the underlying crimes and were convicted of committing them while acting in concert. (Albillar, supra, 51 Cal.4th at pp. 51-54.) While these facts did not necessarily cry out "gang attack," a gang expert testified the defendants' gang was known for committing violent crimes and willing to venture outside their claimed turf to commit them. (Id. at p. 53.) And as Medina did here, the expert testified "[g]ang members commit crimes together to increase their chances of success, to bolster their confidence in one another, and to enable the participants to boast about each other's criminal endeavors to those who were not present[.]" (Ibid.) "In addition, [the expert opined] the bonds within the gang 'would keep people from ratting on their own gang' to the police about the crimes that gang members were committing" (Id. at p. 61.) According to the expert, the defendants' crimes would not only elevate their individual status, they would also elevate the status of their gang, by bolstering its reputation for violence. (Id. at pp. 53-54, 63.)
The victim knew the defendants were gang members but she was not afraid of them. (Albillar, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 51.)
Speaking to the benefit prong of the gang enhancement statute, the Supreme Court in Albillar ruled that, even though there was no specific evidence the status of the defendants' gang was bolstered by their crimes, the jury could rely on the expert's testimony to infer that it was. (Albillar, supra, 51 Cal.4th at pp. 62-63.) And although the defendants were related to each other and lived together, thus making it conceivable they committed their crimes together "'on a frolic and detour unrelated to [their] gang'" (id. at p. 62), Albillar determined the jury was entitled to draw the opposite conclusion based on the defendants' gang involvement and the dynamics of their gang, as explained by the gang expert (id. at pp. 62-63). Indeed, for purposes of the "in association with" language of the gang enhancement statute, Albillar found it was sufficient that the defendants "came together as gang members" to commit their crimes. (Id. at p. 62.)
Based on the reasoning of Albillar, the jury in this case could reasonably find defendants committed the subject robberies for the benefit of and in association with the VNG. The evidence shows appellants were entrenched VNG members who worked together with fellow VNG member Curtis to carry out a crime that VNG is known for and that the gang had good reason to commit outside their claimed territory. Upon traveling from Los Angeles to Orange County, the trio raided and ransacked the Goldman's house, and then while one of them stayed behind to guard the Goldmans, the other two went to the Ono residence and robbed the people there. In light of their common gang membership, appellants and Curtis knew they could trust one other both during and after the robberies. And by committing the crimes as a group, they increased their prospects for success and developed a built-in audience who could attest to their criminal feats at a later time. As gang expert Medina explained, the fact other gang members personally witnessed their criminal endeavors would likely go a long way toward enhancing appellants' status within the VNG and the gang's reputation as a whole.
Besides a boost in status, the VNG could also expect to receive a pecuniary benefit from appellants' crimes. As to this issue, Medina explained the proceeds from gang crimes are typically filtered back to the gang, and that money is then used to acquire the means to commit additional crimes. While there was no direct evidence of that in this case, the jury could reasonably infer it was a motivating factor for appellants' actions, based on Medina's expert testimony. (Albillar, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 63.)
There is one gang characteristic that was present in Albillar that is absent here: Witness intimidation by the defendants' gang after the subject crimes were committed. (Albillar, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 53.) However, that circumstance is insufficient to distinguish Albillar from our case. As in Albillar, we hold there is substantial evidence appellants' crimes were committed for the benefit of and in association with their gang. We thus uphold the jury's true findings on the gang enhancement allegations.
In arguing for a different result, appellants draw our attention to People v. Albarran (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 214 and People v. Ochoa (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 650. In those cases, the admissibility and sufficiency of the gang evidence was questioned, but the facts were materially different than they are here. Most notably, there was no evidence in Albarran and Ochoa that the subject crimes were carried out by multiple gang members who were acting in concert. The fact that three gang members worked together to pull off the robberies at issue here makes the gang aspect evidence an order of magnitude stronger.
Effectiveness of Defense Counsel
Appellants contend their attorneys were ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor's description of the gang enhancement in closing argument. They contend the prosecutor misstated an element of the enhancement. We disagree and reject their Sixth Amendment claim.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to effective assistance of counsel. (People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171, 215.) To prove that right was violated, "'"'a defendant must first show counsel's performance was "deficient" because his "representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness . . . under prevailing professional norms." [Citations.] Second, he must also show prejudice flowing from counsel's performance or lack thereof. [Citations.] Prejudice is shown when there is a "reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different."'" [Citations.]' [Citation.]" (In re Hardy (2007) 41 Cal.4th 977, 1018-1019.)
As explained above, the prosecutor argued appellants fell within the terms of the gang enhancement statute because, acting with the requisite intent, they committed the charged robberies for the benefit of and/or in association with their gang. Discussing the association element in closing argument, the prosecutor stated that element was "an absolute no-brainer because what that says is that you're committing [the robberies] in association with VNG. Well, guess what? Everybody who [participated in the robberies] was a VNG gangster. There's a reason why everyone who was there was VNG. They are committing this crime together. They know that when they go there, a VNG gang member will not back down, a VNG member will step up, and a VNG member is not going to rat on them or snitch on them after it's done because they are all part of the same gang. You heard about reputation, you heard about respect, and [the danger of] snitching to the police on your fellow gangsters, there's no way that's happening. [¶] When gang members go out and commit this type of crime together, that is the very definition of in association with. Once you get that, that's done. There's no further requirement to be shown for that element of the gang enhancement." (Italics added.)
Appellant Pierson's attorney also spoke to this issue in closing argument. She told the jury that just because three people in a particular group may have committed a crime together does not necessarily mean they were acting in association with that group.
In rebuttal, the prosecutor returned to this point, maintaining "[i]t's not a coincidence that the only three people who went there to commit this crime are all VNG gangsters. All of them. That's how you know it was a gang crime. They are doing it together. It's not like two of them did it and they brought in a friend from the neighborhood who just happened to be around. They committed the crime together as gang members. The very facts of this case prove in association with. That's why I went through such detail about the fact that they were all members, so it's understood that this is what's happening."
Gang expert Medina addressed this issue in his testimony, as well. He said there are certain crimes, such as child abuse, domestic violence and shoplifting, that gang members commit for personal reasons unrelated to their gang. Medina said those crimes typically do not benefit the perpetrator's gang, even if they are committed together by multiple gang members.
Appellants argue the prosecutor's description of the association element "was wrong" because he "told the jury in no uncertain terms that merely committing a crime with another gang member satisfied" that element. This is a myopic view of the prosecutor's closing argument. There are parts of the argument that, when viewed in isolation, suggest the association element is met whenever gang members commit a crime together. (See italicized text in above quotation.) But in assessing whether the prosecutor erroneously described that element, we must view his statements as a whole and in the context in which they were made. (People v. Dennis (1998) 17 Cal.4th 468, 522.) We will not find prosecutorial error unless it is reasonably likely the prosecutor's remarks, viewed in their entirety, caused the jury to misapply or misconstrue the law in some way. (People v. Ayala (2000) 23 Cal.4th 225, 284.)
No such likelihood exists in this case. Throughout his discussion of the association element in closing argument, the prosecutor explained why it is advantageous for gang members to commit crimes together. He talked about the inherent trust gang members have in one another and how important gang crimes are in terms of achieving status and respect in the gang culture. In other words, in arguing the association element, the prosecutor did not just rely on the fact appellants and Curtis were all members of the same gang. Instead, he urged the jury to find the element was satisfied because the facts of the case proved appellants committed the robberies as gang members. That is the crux of the association element, as described by the Supreme Court in Albillar. (Albillar, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 62.) Therefore, the prosecutor's remarks were not improper, and defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge them. No cause for reversal has been shown.
Appellants also argue the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to rely on conspiracy as a theory of culpability, given they were not actually charged with the crime of conspiracy. However, as appellants admit, this argument has been rejected in Supreme Court cases (e.g., People v. Valdez (2012) 55 Cal.4th 82, 149-150; People v. Belmontes (1988) 45 Cal.3d 744, 788-789, overruled on other grounds in People v. Cortez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 101) we are bound to follow (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455). Since appellants have raised the issue solely to preserve it for further federal review, we will leave it at that. --------
DISPOSITION
The judgments are affirmed.
BEDSWORTH, J. WE CONCUR: O'LEARY, P. J. FYBEL, J.