Opinion
A134006
01-31-2013
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LUIS ALBERTO CARRENO, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR577446)
Defendant Luis Carreno appeals from a judgment convicting him of two counts of transportation or sale of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) and one count of misdemeanor child endangerment. He contends there is insufficient evidence to support the conviction for child endangerment. We affirm.
Factual and Procedural Background
On September 7, 2010, defendant was charged by an amended information with three counts of sale/transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)) (January 19, January 28, and February 3, 2010), and one misdemeanor count of child endangerment on February 3, 2010 (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (b)). Following a mistrial, the matter proceeded to trial a second time in June 2011.~ (I CT 57; III CT 147)~
The following evidence was presented at trial:
Bandon Van Camp and Terry White, both detectives with the Sonoma County Sheriff's Department, testified to a narcotics investigation they conducted in December 2009 and January 2010 that included five methamphetamine sale and purchase transactions involving defendant and his associates. No evidence was presented directly connecting defendant to the first two transactions that occurred in December 2009. As to the three subsequent transactions, White testified that each transaction was arranged by telephone with a man named Manuel. On January 19, 2010, White arranged to purchase $1,300 worth of methamphetamine from Manuel in the parking lot of a Kohl's store in Santa Rosa. He testified that defendant drove Manuel to and from the location in a gray Toyota Camry. On January 28, 2010, White again arranged to purchase $1,300 worth of methamphetamine from Manuel at the Santa Rosa Home Depot. Again defendant drove Manuel to and from the location. This time the sale occurred inside the store and defendant accompanied Manuel into the store and directed White to the bathroom, where the sale occurred. On February 3, White again arranged to purchase methamphetamine from Manuel, this time in a Denny's parking lot. When White arrived at Denny's, he called Manuel to confirm his arrival. The gray Toyota Camry that had been involved in prior transactions arrived at the Denny's lot and parked. Defendant and a young Hispanic boy, later determined to be defendant's seven-year-old son, got out of the Toyota, walked hand in hand across the parking lot and entered the restaurant. Defendant and his son were seated in a corner booth by the front of the restaurant with a view of the parking lot.A short time later, Manuel and a second man arrived in the parking lot in a black Honda. After White purchased $3,600 worth of methamphetamine from Manuel, the signal was given, and Manuel was arrested. Defendant was arrested inside the restaurant. Neither Manuel nor defendant was carrying a gun. When defendant's Toyota Camry was searched at the Denny's, no guns, drugs, drug paraphernalia, cell phones, scales, pay/owe sheets or anything indicating use of the vehicle in drug sales were found.
Sonoma County Sheriff Detective Jason Lucas, who was conducting surveillance at defendant's home prior to the operation at Denny's, testified that the gray Toyota Camry and the black Honda left the location separately about 15 or 20 minutes before the sale transaction occurred at Denny's. Following defendant's arrest, Lucas executed a search warrant at defendant's home, recovering significant indicia of drug dealing, including scales, Ziplock baggies, pipes and what experts testified were pay-owe records.
Van Camp, who was qualified as an expert in the area of undercover methamphetamine sales, testified that he believed defendant was part of a sophisticated "mid-level" drug trafficking organization based on the quantities purchased. He opined that defendant was the leader or manager of the group and the others were subordinates such as drivers and physical distributers. Detective Andrew Cash, who searched defendant's car following his arrest, testified that it was not unusual that no guns or indicia of drug sales were found in defendant's car. In his experience, sophisticated drug dealers often keep such items out of their vehicles to limit additional charges in the event of an arrest. The absence of such items in this instance led him to believe this was a more sophisticated operation. He opined further that the amount of drugs involved in the February 3 transaction indicated a level of danger involved in the transaction. There was also increased danger because an undercover officer was involved.
Evidence was also presented that on two prior occasions, police officers had found defendant in possession of methamphetamine during consent searches.
On June 27, 2011, the jury acquitted defendant of the January 19 drug offense but returned guilty verdicts on the remaining counts. On October 17, 2011, the court sentenced defendant to the midterm of three years on the first drug charge, imposed a consecutive one-year term on the remaining drug charge and a concurrent one-year term on the misdemeanor child endangerment conviction. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
Discussion
Defendant does not challenge his convictions on the drug-related offenses. He contends only that there is no substantial evidence to support his conviction for child endangerment. The court instructed the jury pursuant to CALCRIM No. 823 that in order to find defendant guilty of child endangerment, the People had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that "1. The defendant, while having care or custody of a child, willfully caused or permitted the child to be placed in a situation where the child's person or health was endangered; [¶] and [¶] 2. The defendant was criminally negligent when he caused or permitted the child to be endangered." (See also Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (b) ["Any person who, . . . having the care or custody of any child, . . . willfully causes or permits that child to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health may be endangered, is guilty of a misdemeanor"].) The jury was further instructed that "Criminal negligence involves more than ordinary carelessness, inattention, or mistake in judgment. A person acts with criminal negligence when: [¶] 1. He or she acts in a reckless way that is a gross departure from the way an ordinarily careful person would act in the same situation; [¶] 2. The person's acts amount to disregard for human life or indifference to the consequences of his or her acts; [¶] and [¶] 3. A reasonable person would have known that acting in that way would naturally and probably result in harm to others." (Italics omitted.)
Defendant contends that "[e]ven assuming arguendo, that [he] was the leader of a mid-size drug distribution operation . . . on February 3, 2010, as Detective Van Camp opined, there was no evidence presented by the prosecution to establish that [he] ever subjected his son to a 'situation where his . . . person or health [might] be endangered . . .' at the Denny's Restaurant on that date."
When considering a defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the entire record most favorably to the judgment to determine whether the record contains substantial evidence from which a rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. We do not reweigh evidence or reassess a witness's credibility and we presume the existence of every fact the trier of fact could reasonably deduce from the evidence. (People v. Lindberg (2008) 45 Cal.4th 1, 27.) "Unless it is clearly shown that 'on no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the [jury's] verdict[s,]' we will not reverse." (People v. Stewart (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 785, 790.) If the circumstances reasonably justify the jury's findings, reversal is not warranted merely because the circumstances might also be reasonably reconciled with a contrary finding. (People v. Nelson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 198, 210.)
In this case, the evidence establishes that defendant was involved in a sophisticated drug distribution operation and that, on February 3, he brought his son to the location of a sizable drug transaction. Contrary to defendant's assertion, the absence of known weapons does not necessarily negate criminal negligence. Bringing a seven-year-old child to the scene of a relatively large scale drug sale may be viewed as inherently dangerous. Although defendant carried no weapon and apparently was participating only as a look out, the possibility that others involved in the transaction, or law enforcement, would appear with weapons and violence develop cannot be ignored. The jury was certainly justified in deeming defendant's conduct in subjecting his minor son to that risk to be reckless and far from what a reasonably prudent parent would do. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports defendant's conviction for misdemeanor child endangerment.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
________________
Pollak, Acting P. J.
We concur: ________________
Siggins, J.
________________
Jenkins, J.