Opinion
B232944
02-07-2012
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALVARO RUIZ, Defendant and Appellant.
Joshua L. Siegel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. KA092929)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Bruce Marrs, Judge. Affirmed.
Joshua L. Siegel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On April 7, 2011, an amended information was filed, charging appellant Alvaro Ruiz in count 1 with the robbery of William Carrillo (Pen. Code, § 211), and in count 2 with possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a). In connection with count 1, the information alleged that appellant personally used a firearm in the offense (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (b)), and that the offense had been committed in association with, and for the benefit of a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)). The information also alleged that appellant had suffered a prior conviction (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). Appellant pleaded not guilty and denied the special allegations. At appellant's request, the trial court bifurcated trial on the prior conviction allegation.
During appellant's jury trial, the prosecution presented evidence establishing the following facts: At approximately 11:00 p.m. on December 30, 2010, when William Carrillo parked his truck, appellant left a nearby car, approached Carrillo, and said, "I'm Roach from 12th Street." Appellant then asked, "What you got?", and pointed to a pistol tucked in his waistband. Appellant took $135 in cash from Carrillo and walked back to the car, which departed. After Carrillo made a 911 call and a Pomona Police Department patrol car arrived, Carrillo drove with the officers in an effort to find the car containing appellant. When Carrillo spotted the car, the officers stopped it and showed its occupants to Carrillo, who remained inside the patrol car. Carrillo identified appellant as the robber.
When arrested, appellant had more than $200 in cash and a pouch containing .57 grams of methamphetamine. During booking, appellant stated that he had a 12th Street gang tattoo and that his moniker was "Roach." According to Pomona Police Department Officer Michael Lange, a gang expert, the Pomona 12th Street gang engages in violent offenses, narcotics sales, and other crimes, including witness intimidation. Lange opined that appellant is a member of the gang; in addition, in response to hypothetical questions, he opined that a robbery of the type attributed to appellant would be for the benefit of the gang.
While in jail, appellant participated in phone calls during which he said that he would be "good" if Carrillo "d[id]n't show up in court." Later, a police detective told Carrillo that appellant had phoned other individuals from jail in an attempt to deter him from testifying. To protect his family, Carrillo did not appear at appellant's preliminary hearing.
Audio recordings and transcripts of the phone calls were submitted to the jury.
On April 15, 2011, a jury found appellant guilty as charged, and found the gun use and gang allegations to be true. After the trial court found the prior conviction allegation to be true, it sentenced appellant to a total term of 26 years and 8 months in prison.
DISCUSSION
After an examination of the record, appellant's court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and requested this court to review the record independently pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. In addition, counsel advised appellant of his right to submit by supplemental brief any contentions or argument he wished the court to consider. Appellant has presented no such brief. Our examination of the entire record establishes that appellant's counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
MANELLA, J.
We concur:
WILLHITE, Acting P. J.
SUZUKAWA, J.