Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. BA323642, Morris B. Jones, Judge.
Lawrence R. Young, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr. and Jaime L. Fuster, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
BIGELOW, J.
Ruben Martinez, Jr. appeals from a judgment following his conviction for nine counts of robbery with the aggravating circumstance that he personally used a firearm during the commission of each of the robberies. (Penal Code, §§ 211, 12022.53, subd. (b), 1203, subd (a)(1).) He contends the eyewitness evidence identifying him as the perpetrator is insufficient. We disagree and affirm.
All further section references are to the Penal Code.
FACTS
In summary, the facts show that from 2005 to 2007, the Earl Sheib auto body shop at 1601 South Soto Boulevard in Los Angeles was robbed five times by the same person. On each occasion, the perpetrator forced the manager at gunpoint to give him the cash from the safe and the manager’s own wallet. Money and personal items were also taken from the employees and customers on two occasions. There were no security cameras at the body shop at any time. Martinez was charged with nine counts of second degree robbery of the employees and customers of Earl Sheib.
I. The Robberies
On December 29, 2005, sometime before 6:00 p.m., Martinez walked into the Earl Sheib auto body shop without a mask and forced the manager, Juan Rodriguez, to open the safe at gunpoint. Rodriguez complied and gave him approximately $1,300 in cash from the safe and $350 from his wallet. When Martinez left, he disabled the shop’s phone. Rodriguez called his wife from his mobile phone and asked her to call 9-1-1. He also called the police from the shop’s fax phone. Rodriguez testified he had a clear picture of Martinez’s face and recalled that he had a mustache and a gap between his top teeth.
On December 29, 2006, sometime before 10:00 a.m., a person wearing a mask approached Rodriguez at the shop from behind with a gun. Rodriguez was able to see his eyes and his mouth through holes cut in the mask and recognized him as the person who had robbed the shop the year before. Rodriguez said, “It’s you again.” The robber replied, “Shut up. I’m here for the money.” This time, Rodriguez gave him approximately $1,500 from the safe and $25 from his own wallet. Mark Mowrer, a dispatcher for day laborers, testified his records showed that Martinez was working on December 29, 2006 at a company in Studio City from 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and he was paid between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. that day.
On March 9, 2007, sometime before 11:50 a.m., the same masked perpetrator again forced Rodriguez to open the safe at gun point. Rodriguez recognized the perpetrator from his voice, the gap between his teeth and his mustache and said, “Shit, you again.” Rodriguez gave him approximately $2,500 from the safe, $1,700 of it in cash. The perpetrator then asked if the employees had been paid that day. When Rodriguez confirmed this, the perpetrator told him to take him to the employees. Pedro Sanchez, William Hernandez and Isaac Flores were working that day and were ordered to hand over their money. A customer who happened to walk in during the robbery and a painter working at the location that day were also robbed. Sanchez had his money in his car and was forced to retrieve it. Martinez’s supervisor testified he signed time sheets showing Martinez was working in Pico Rivera on March 9 from approximately 6:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. He did acknowledge, however, that Martinez had an hour lunch break that day.
Hernandez and Sanchez assisted a sketch artist to prepare a drawing of the perpetrator on April 16, 2007. Sanchez identified Martinez as the perpetrator at trial. Rodriguez twice identified Martinez as the perpetrator in a photographic lineup. He also identified him in a live lineup and at trial.
Because he felt Earl Sheib was not doing enough to protect its employees, Rodriguez quit in March 2007 and Edward Mendez was hired as the manager at the Soto Boulevard location. On May 18, 2007, someone in a white ski mask robbed the body shop and its employees. The perpetrator ordered Mendez to give him the money from the safe and ordered the employees and Mendez to give him their money. Christopher Devora, one of the employees robbed that day, attended a live lineup and identified Martinez as the perpetrator by his eyebrows and his eyes. Devora also identified Martinez as the perpetrator at trial.
On May 31, 2007, Mendez was working at Earl Sheib in the late afternoon when it was robbed by someone who held a red rag to his face. Mendez recognized him as the same person who had robbed him two weeks before. Mendez identified Martinez as the perpetrator of both robberies in a photographic lineup by his eyes, eyebrows and nose. Mendez also identified Martinez as the perpetrator at trial. There were no further robberies at that Earl Sheib location after May 31, 2007.
Martinez’s wife testified that she was on disability during the dates the Earl Sheib was robbed and drove Martinez to and from work in the city of Pico Rivera every day. She further testified that Martinez’s pay stubs showed he was at work at the time of the robberies. Martinez’s brother-in-law also testified that Martinez worked every day including some Saturdays and he drove Martinez to and from work in 2005.
II. The Verdict and Sentence
The jury returned a guilty verdict on all nine robbery counts. It also found true the allegation that Martinez personally used a firearm during each of the robberies. Martinez was denied probation and sentenced to a total of 47 years and 8 months in state prison. He received 531 days custody and conduct credit and was ordered to pay various fines and to provide buccal swab samples, finger and palm prints and blood samples. Martinez timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
Martinez’s only contention on appeal is that the prosecution failed to prove that he committed the robberies. He claims he could not have perpetrated the crimes because he was at work when some of them took place. He argues that there is no physical evidence linking him to the crimes and one of the eyewitness’ testimony is unreliable. We believe his claim falters because it overlooks basic appellate principles governing sufficiency of the evidence.
“In assessing a claim of insufficiency of evidence, the reviewing court’s task is to review the whole 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--such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 11; see also Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 317-320.) The substantial evidence standard requires that we not reweigh the evidence and presume every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. (People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206; Howard v. Owens Corning (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 621, 630-631.) “Resolution of conflicts and inconsistencies in the testimony is the exclusive province of the trier of fact. [Citation.] Moreover, unless the testimony is physically impossible or inherently improbable, testimony of a single witness is sufficient to support a conviction. [Citation.]” (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181.) We do not substitute our evaluation of a witness’s credibility for that of the trier of fact. (People v. Lewis (2001) 26 Cal.4th 334, 361.)
Applying those standards it is clear that the evidence here is more than sufficient to support the verdict. Five eyewitnesses, Flores, Mendez, Rodriguez, Devora and Gonzales, identified Martinez as the perpetrator. They did so in a variety of circumstances – in court, at a live lineup, from a photo six-pack, and by directing an artist to prepare a sketch. Martinez only complains that Mendez’s photographic identification is problematic because it was based on the fact that his “eyes and eye brows and . . . nose resembled [sic] closer to the person.” He does not take issue with the other four witness’ testimony or identification. A single eyewitness is sufficient to support a criminal conviction in cases like this one. (People v. Turner (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 658, 671.) Martinez does not argue that all the eyewitnesses could not see him or that the physical or photographic lineups were improperly conducted.
The conflicting testimony presented by the defense witnesses that Martinez was at work at times close to most of the robberies does not negate a finding of substantial evidence. The jury, tasked with weighing the evidence and deciding which witnesses to believe, credited the prosecution witnesses and not the defense. Their testimony provided sufficient evidence. The lack of forensic evidence tying Martinez to the crime scene, such as fingerprints or gunshot residue, is irrelevant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: FLIER, Acting P. J., O’NEILL, J.
Judge of the Ventura Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.