Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. TA086477, Kelvin D. Filer, Judge.
Lynda A. Romero, 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, Michael C. Keller and Ellen Birnbaum Kehr, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
SUZUKAWA, J.
Following a jury trial, appellant Kenneth Reese was convicted of one count of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and two counts of attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder (§§ 664/187, subd. (a)) with findings that he personally and intentionally used a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)), personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury and death (§ 12022.53, subds. (c), (d)), and committed the offenses for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)). He was sentenced to 90 years to life in state prison. He appeals, contending that there is insufficient evidence to support the first degree murder conviction and the gang enhancement. We disagree and affirm the judgment.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On August 9, 2006, at approximately 10:00 p.m., three women were struck by gunfire in the parking lot of the Jordan Downs housing project in Los Angeles. Linda Menyweather was parking her van when she felt a burning sensation in her back and realized she had been shot. She did not hear any gunshots. Diane Fradieu, who was walking in the parking lot, was shot in the neck and died. Quwanna Williams, who was 16 years old, was walking in the parking lot with her aunt and her aunt’s boyfriend, Traveon Pittman. She was shot in the foot. She got into a car with Pittman, who took her to the hospital.
Los Angeles Police Detective Mark Castillo and his partner arrived at the scene of the shooting shortly after midnight. Detective Castillo found one cartridge casing, but no expended bullets. He then went to Martin Luther King Hospital where he spoke with Menyweather and Williams as they were being prepared for surgery. Williams said that the shots were fired from inside a gray Dodge Magnum. The driver was a muscular Black man in his 30’s wearing a short sleeve shirt and the passenger was a male Black in his early 20’s wearing a baseball cap. Williams did not tell Detective Castillo that she recognized the shooter.
On the morning following the incident, August 10, a city security officer reported to patrol officers that he had a conversation with an individual (later identified as Demirea Perry) regarding a Dodge Magnum that was parked in a lot in the Nickerson Gardens housing project. The detectives responded to the location. The vehicle was photographed and towed.
A later search of the vehicle revealed no relevant evidence.
The detectives returned to the hospital to speak with Williams on three occasions. On August 11, Williams told them for the first time that the shooter was someone named “Wooty, ” whom she had known in middle school. On August 15, Williams reiterated that “Wooty” was the shooter. Detective Castillo showed her some photographs; appellant’s was not among them. Williams did not identify the shooter. On September 1, the detectives showed Williams a photographic lineup that had appellant’s picture in position number 4. Williams said that number 4 was “Wooty, ” the person who shot her, but she did not want to circle the photograph or sign her name.
Appellant was arrested on September 6, 2006. Officers who searched his bedroom found a picture with writing on the back that said, “Wooty.”
On August 22, the detectives were able to interview Demirea Perry. He gave them the names of four people whom he had seen exiting the Dodge Magnum in Nickerson Gardens on the night of the shooting. Perry told them that Lawrence Hughes was the driver and appellant was in the front passenger seat. Perry expressed concern for his safety.
In October 2006, the detectives brought Perry to the district attorney’s office for another interview, which was recorded. During the interview, Perry was coherent and responsive to questions and did not mention that he regularly took medication. His statements were consistent with those he gave in the earlier August interview.
At the preliminary hearing, Perry testified that at the October meeting, he was threatened by the deputy district attorney and Detective Castillo. At the hearing, there were members of the audience from Nickerson Gardens and as the deputy district attorney began to play the recording of the October interview, Perry was visibly shaken and sweating. During the lunch break, Perry was transported to the hospital for what was described as a “nervous breakdown.” When he returned to the continued date of the preliminary hearing, he said he was taking medication and that sometimes he sees and hears things that are not there and says things that are not true.
At trial, Perry testified that he lived in Nickerson Gardens at the time of the shooting. He knew appellant and had seen him in the area with Lawrence Hughes and others associated with the Bounty Hunters gang. On the night of August 9, 2006, he saw a gray Dodge Magnum turn into the Nickerson Gardens parking lot. He saw appellant, Hughes, and two others get out of the car. Hughes was driving. Perry said he told the detectives that Hughes was carrying a handgun and someone else was carrying a rifle. He did not see appellant carrying a gun. He later told a security officer he thought the car was used in a drive-by shooting, based on what other people had said to him. Perry testified that he told the truth during his initial interview with the detectives. Perry told the jury he had no animosity towards Hughes, appellant, or anyone else he saw in the car. He admitted taking psychotropic medications since he was in middle school but denied that they affect his memory or his eyesight. He denied that Detective Castillo ever threatened him during the October 2006 interview. However, he admitted writing a letter alleging that the detective acted inappropriately and forced him to make statements. Perry also acknowledged that he wrote to the President of the United States accusing Detectives de la Cova and Castillo of improper coercive conduct.
Ray Gordon testified that on August 7, 2006, his gray Dodge Magnum (identified as the vehicle used in the shooting) was taken from him at gunpoint while he was parked in Nickerson Gardens. The person holding the gun was a young Black male, about 16 or 17 years old. The gunman was with five or six other young men. When shown a photographic six-pack, Gordon did not identify appellant; however, he did recognize Lawrence Hughes. Gordon told police that Hughes was present when his car was taken.
Williams did not testify at trial, but her preliminary hearing testimony was read into the record. At that hearing, she said “Little Wooty” was firing at a group of people from the front passenger seat of a Dodge. She identified the Dodge Magnum Demirea Perry saw appellant exiting on the night of the shooting as the vehicle used in the attack.
Detective Christian Mrakich testified as an expert on criminal gangs. He had worked in the gang unit for 12 years prior to becoming a detective. He had performed many investigations, surveillances, wiretaps, and background searches of gang members and had served on three FBI gang task forces. He was more familiar with the Nickerson Gardens and Jordan Downs areas than other areas in his division. He explained that there is a heated and violent rivalry between the Grape Street Crips, which controls Jordan Downs, and the Bounty Hunters Bloods gang, which controls Nickerson Gardens. The Grape Street Crips gang members tended to congregate in the Jordan Downs parking lot where the shooting occurred. Traveon Pittman, who was with Williams when she was shot, is a member of the Grape Street Crips. Williams’s boyfriend, Dareon Harris, is also a member of the Grape Street Crips. Neither Menyweather nor Fradieu had any gang ties.
Detective Mrakich did not know Lawrence Hughes or appellant. Hughes had Bounty Hunters tattoos and Bounty Hunters graffiti was seen at his residence. The tattoos on Hughes’s arm stood for Bounty Hunters and Crip Killer. Detective Mrakich opined that appellant was a member of the Bounty Hunters based on information from other officers. Appellant’s name appeared in the Cal gang computer system as a Bounty Hunter gang member. Although appellant did not have any tattoos identifying him as a Bounty Hunter gang member, Detective Mrakich said it was not uncommon for members not to have such tattoos.
Detective Mrakich testified that Bounty Hunters are involved in sales of narcotics, assaults, robberies, witness intimidation, extortion, and murder. People in the community were reluctant to give information about gang members or cooperate with police because it places the person and his or her family members at risk of retaliation.
Detective Mrakich was given a hypothetical based upon the facts of this case and opined that the shooting was a coordinated, well-planned attack committed for the benefit of the Bounty Hunters. The type of car used, the number of people involved, the type of weapon used, and the method of the shooting and escape were all consistent with a gang shooting. This type of shooting would elevate the status of the gang and strike fear in the community.
DISCUSSION
I. Sufficiency of Evidence to Support the Murder Conviction
Appellant contends his murder conviction must be reversed because there is insufficient evidence that he was the shooter. He attacks Williams’s identification of him, noting she failed to inform officers that he was the shooter during the initial interview. He also alleges she is a biased witness due to her relationship with rival gang members. Next, appellant asserts Perry’s testimony is unreliable due to his history of mental issues. Moreover, Perry’s description of the clothing appellant and his companions were wearing on the night of the shooting did not match Williams’s. Finally, he points out there is no physical evidence linking him to the crime.
“‘Conflicts and even testimony [that] is subject to justifiable suspicion do not justify the reversal of a judgment, for it is the exclusive province of the trial judge or jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts upon which a determination depends. [Citation.] We resolve neither credibility issues nor evidentiary conflicts; we look for substantial evidence. [Citation.]’ ([People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, ] 403.) A reversal for insufficient evidence ‘is unwarranted unless it appears “that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support”’ the jury’s verdict. (People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331.)” (People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357.) “Moreover, unless the testimony is physically impossible or inherently improbable, testimony of a single witness is sufficient to support a conviction.” (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181.)
The simple fact of the matter is that Williams, who knew appellant, identified him as the shooter. Perry, who also knew appellant, placed him in the vehicle used in the shooting shortly after the event occurred. Perry saw appellant exiting from the front passenger seat, the same seat Williams said appellant sat in as he fired at the crowd. Perry also noticed two of the men exiting the Dodge with firearms. After the shooting, the vehicle was parked in Nickerson Gardens, a stronghold of the Bounty Hunters gang. Perry’s testimony provided circumstantial evidence that corroborates Williams’s identification. Significantly, there is no evidence Williams and Perry knew one another or that either had any animosity toward appellant.
All of the alleged weaknesses in Williams’s and Perry’s testimony were presented to the jury. Appellant is asking us to invade the province of the jury and reweigh the evidence. We decline to do so. In the end, there is nothing inherently improbable in Williams’s identification testimony, and this alone supports the conviction. With the addition of Perry’s observations on the night of the shooting there is substantial evidence to support the conviction.
II. Sufficiency of the Evidence as to the Gang Enhancement
Appellant also contends there is insufficient evidence to support the gang enhancement. He argues that his membership in the Bounty Hunters was based upon hearsay and the unsubstantiated opinion testimony of Detective Mrakich. He asserts that even if his membership were established, there is insufficient evidence the crime was gang-related. Appellant points to the absence of an exchange of gang signs or gang-related threats during the shooting and the fact that no gang took credit for the crime.
Appellant did not raise a hearsay objection at trial. Nor does he claim on appeal that the evidence was improperly admitted.
We will not reverse a judgment for insufficiency of the evidence simply because the evidence might also be reasonably reconciled with a contrary finding. We review the record only to determine whether it contains substantial evidence from which a trier of fact could find the defendant guilty. We will not reweigh the evidence nor reevaluate the credibility of witnesses. (People v. Albillar (2010) 51 Cal.4th 47, 60.)
Appellant’s claim the evidence failed to establish he is a Bounty Hunters gang member is unavailing. Detective Mrakich was informed by other officers that appellant admitted he was a Bounty Hunter belonging to the “Block” clique. Appellant acknowledged his gang moniker was “Wooty.” He was listed as a Bounty Hunters member in the Cal gang data base. Demirea Perry saw appellant in Nickerson Gardens in the company of known Bounty Hunters members on a number of occasions. Although the jury was free to conclude appellant was not a Bounty Hunter, it determined otherwise. Substantial evidence supports its finding.
We have reviewed the record and conclude there is ample evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that the shooting was committed for the benefit of or in association with gang members with the requisite intent to further gang activity. The undisputed testimony was that the victims were shot in Grape Street Crips territory and in a parking lot where Crips were known to congregate. Williams was in the company of a Grape Street member when she was shot and her boyfriend was also a member. Appellant committed the crime in the company of another confirmed Bounty Hunters member. The vehicle used in the crime was later discovered in Bounty Hunters territory. The expert witness also opined that the nature of the shooting, the manner in which it was carried out, and the method utilized to flee the scene and abandon the vehicle used in the crime demonstrated that the shooting was gang-related. This evidence amply supports the jury’s conclusion that the crime was committed in association with gang members with the intent to benefit the gang. (People v. Leon (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 149, 163; People v. Ortiz (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 480, 484.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: EPSTEIN, P.J., WILLHITE, J.