People v. Rouse

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CARL L. ROUSE, Defendant and…

Court: COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Feb 3, 2012

D055804 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2012)

Opinion

D055804

02-03-2012

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CARL L. ROUSE, Defendant and Appellant.

MCINTYRE

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. Nos. SCD206291, SCD192975)

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING

[NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on January 5, 2012, be modified as follows:

1. On page 6, the fourth sentence of the first full paragraph, after the citation, "Evid. Code, § 1101, subd. (b).," is deleted and replaced with the following:

Additionally, Rouse provided one of the guns in the robbery kit used for both the Skyline Farms and the Eastridge Liquor crimes and his gun possession was directly at issue to count 7 (possession of a firearm by a felon).

2. On page 10, after the heading "B. Conspiracy to Rob Laday (Count 1)," the first three full paragraphs are deleted and replaced with the following:

To prove the existence of a conspiracy to rob Laday, the prosecution presented the recordings of telephone calls from Jabbar's phones that occurred between January 8 and 12, and the trial testimony of Wright, Laday and Agent Houska. Specifically, on January 8, Jabbar received a call from an unidentified male, who asked, "when they say it gonna be ready?" At trial, the prosecution played part of this telephone call for the jury and asked Wright questions about the conversation.
During the call, an unidentified male stated, "I'm ready," "everybody be ready" and "[w]hat we gotta do is get in, get out." When the unidentified male asked Jabbar whether he would "go into the unit by [him]self," Jabbar indicated that he did not know what the plan was because they had not sat down and talked about it. The unidentified male replied that the plan involved himself, using the name "Bo," Jabbar, and Wright. They then mentioned a woman who lived near an alley, with the unidentified male stating: "Well shit, we wan get in the house, but we might wanna get the mutha fucka in the house, first, tie 'em up, get his keys and everything else, man, go to his house. Cuz he got the money and shit."
Wright testified that he recognized the voices as belonging to Jabbar and Rouse. Rouse, however, claimed that the person in the call was Trent. Although the call occurred about ten minutes after Rouse had spoken to Jabbar, the unidentified male's reference to himself as "Bo" suggests the caller is Rouse. We interpret conflicting evidence in favor of the judgment.
Even assuming the participant in the call was not Rouse, the call is sufficient to establish the existence of a conspiracy to rob Laday when considered with Wright's trial testimony. At trial, Wright testified that he, Rouse and someone named Trent discussed a robbery involving Laday because she was known as a middle person for purchasing large quantities of marijuana. Wright claimed that Trent planned to set up a deal with Laday using Jabbar as the "front" for the money and that he and Rouse would commit the robbery. This testimony and the January 8 telephone call properly established the existence of a conspiracy to rob Laday. (People v. Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 1135 [proof required to establish existence of a conspiracy may consist of uncorroborated accomplice testimony].) Accordingly, we turn to the

remaining evidence to ascertain whether independent evidence connected Rouse to the conspiracy.

3. On page 18, the first sentence of the last paragraph is deleted and replaced with the following:

Rouse, Wright, Montgomery and Henderson are all members of the same gang. Although the calls were not recorded, Rouse contacted or attempted to contact either Montgomery or Wright about 47 times the day before the robbery and called no other telephone numbers that day.

There is no change in the judgment. Appellant's petition for rehearing is denied.

_____________

MCINTYRE, Acting P. J.
Copies to: All parties