From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Vera

Court of Appeal of California
Jul 30, 2008
2d Crim. No. B199126 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 30, 2008)

Opinion

2d Crim. No. B199126

7-30-2008

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICARDO LIMON VERA, Defendant and Appellant.

Pamela J. Voich, 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, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Kristofer Jorstad and Kenneth N. Sokoler, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Not to be Published


Ricardo Limon Vera appeals a judgment after his conviction of solicitation of murder (Pen. Code, § 653f, subd. (b)), dissuading a witness from reporting a crime (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1)), and two counts of disobeying a domestic relations court order (§ 273.6, subd. (a)). We conclude that sufficient corroborating evidence supports Veras conviction for solicitation of murder and substantial evidence supports his felony conviction for dissuading a witness. We affirm.

FACTS

Rosalba Limon, Veras wife, called the police because Vera threatened to kill her and she feared for her life. The police served him with an emergency protective order which prohibited him from contacting Limon. He violated that order by repeatedly calling her. In one of those conversations, he told her to go to court and say the offense he committed against her never happened.

While in jail, Vera told Michael Castillo, a cellmate, that he wanted his help in killing Alfredo Ruiz and his family. Ruiz was a police officer and a relative of Veras. Because of problems Ruiz had with Vera, he made sure that Vera would not communicate with his family. Vera told Castillo that he planned to kill Ruiz because he was responsible for his incarceration.

Ruiz and his family owned a restaurant. Vera, an electrician, had previously performed work on the electrical system there. Castillo testified Vera told him he planned to wire an electrical panel so it would set off an explosion at the restaurant. Vera referred to the explosion as a "fireworks show." He drew an electrical wiring diagram and told Castillo an explosion could be set off when Ruiz turned on the lights.

Castillo was concerned for the safety of the Ruiz family. He reported to Michael McGehee, the police officer who took his statement, what Vera told him. He gave McGehee the wiring diagram Vera prepared. That diagram was introduced as an exhibit at trial.

Castillo agreed to wear a wire to record future conversations with Vera. Two of their conversations were taped. The first tape was of poor quality because of noises in the cell. But McGehee heard "some words" that "corroborated" what Castillo told him. The second taped conversation was clearer. McGeehe testified he heard Vera admit on that tape what Castillo initially told him about Veras plan to blow up Ruizs restaurant. He also heard Vera tell Castillo the type of wire to obtain for the restaurants "fireworks show," and "[I]t is going to blow one day and we are going to help it a little bit."

Police officer Eligio Lara testified that Castillos sister informed him that Vera told her that "when he gets out everyone that has done anything wrong to him is going to pay." Vera also made a phone call to his sister from jail, which was recorded. In that call, he told his sister, "I want vengeance." That statement "was directed toward [Veras] wife."

In the defense case, Vera testified: He knew there was a restraining order prohibiting him from contacting Limon. He did not threaten her, "I just told her I was going to have court." He talked with Castillo in jail, and "would just pass the time by making [his] drawings." He had additional electrical work to complete at the restaurant when he was released from jail. He did not believe Ruiz caused his incarceration. Vera told his sister it was Ruizs "fault" he was in jail. On cross-examination, Vera said he told her, "[P]eople are going to pay when I get out of jail."

DISCUSSION

I. Sufficiency of Corroborating Evidence for Solicitation of Murder

Vera contends there was insufficient evidence to corroborate Castillos testimony, and consequently his conviction for solicitation of murder must be reversed. We disagree.

Section 653f, subdivision (b) provides: "Every person who, with the intent that the crime be committed, solicits another to commit or join in the commission of murder shall be punished by imprisonment . . . ." Solicitation of murder must be proven "by the testimony of two witnesses, or of one witness and corroborating circumstances." (Id. at subd. (f).) This statute was enacted "to guard against convictions for solicitation based on the testimony of one person who may have suspect motives." (People v. Phillips (1985) 41 Cal.3d 29, 76.)

Where one witness testifies, "the corroborative evidence need not be strong nor sufficient in itself, without the aid of other evidence, to establish the fact in issue." (People v. Burt (1955) 45 Cal.2d 311, 316.) "Such evidence "may be slight and entitled to little consideration when standing alone."" (People v. Sanders (1995) 11 Cal.4th 475, 535.) It "is sufficient if it tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime in such a way as may reasonably satisfy the trier of fact that the witness who must be corroborated is telling the truth." (People v. Rissman (1957) 154 Cal.App.2d 265, 277.) Circumstantial evidence may be introduced and a "defendants admissions, active and passive, and his declarations constitute corroboration." (Ibid.) "Inferences from defendants testimony may suffice . . . ." (Id. at p. 278.)

Castillo testified that Vera wanted his help in killing Ruiz and his family. He said Vera believed Ruiz "was the reason why he was in jail." Veras testimony corroborates Castillos on the issues of motive and retaliation. Vera admitted he told his sister that it was Ruizs fault he was in jail, and that "people are going to pay when [he] get[s] out." Officer Laras testimony provided additional corroboration.

Castillo testified that Vera planned to wire an electrical panel so that it would set off an explosion at Ruizs restaurant. He said Vera drew an electrical wiring diagram of the restaurant and told Castillo how easy it would be to set off the explosion when Ruiz turned on the lights. The prosecution produced corroborative evidence when it introduced Veras wiring diagram as an exhibit. On cross-examination, Vera admitted the electrical diagrams he drew in jail were for the Ruiz family restaurant and they contained a "timer" device to turn lights on.

Castillo testified that Vera used the phrase "fireworks show" to refer to the explosion. Officer McGehees testimony provided additional corroboration. He said that in the second taped conversation between Castillo and Vera, he heard Vera discuss the type of equipment needed for "the fireworks show." Vera also said that because his sister worked at the restaurant, he would place cameras there to make sure she would not be present during the explosion. McGehee and Castillo both testified that Vera told Castillo that the wiring "is going to blow one day and we are going to help it a little bit." The evidence is sufficient.

II. Dissuading a Witness

Vera contends there is no substantial evidence to support his felony conviction for dissuading a witness. We disagree.

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we draw all reasonable inferences in support of the judgment; we do not weigh the evidence or decide the credibility of witnesses. (People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 11-12.) Section 136.1, subdivision (b)(1) provides, in relevant part: "[E]very person who attempts to prevent or dissuade another person who has been the victim of a crime or who is witness to a crime from doing any of the following is guilty of a public offense and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year or in state prison: [¶] (1) Making any report of that victimization to any peace officer or state or local law enforcement officer or probation or parole correctional officer or prosecuting agency or to any judge."

Limon testified that Vera told her to go to court and say that the offense he committed against her never happened. The jury could reasonably find that he attempted to dissuade her from testifying against him.

Vera claims that his offense is a misdemeanor and he should not have been charged and convicted of a felony. But, "[b]y its terms, section 136.1, subdivision (b)(1), provides for alternative felony-misdemeanor punishment . . . . This is classic `wobbler language. [Fn. omitted.] A wobbler offense charged as a felony is regarded as a felony for all purposes until imposition of sentence or judgment." (People v. McElroy (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 874, 880.)

Vera contends there is no evidence that he acted maliciously. "Section 136.1, subdivision (b)(1), however, does not require that defendant act knowingly and maliciously." (People v. McElroy, supra, 126 Cal.App.4th at p. 881.) But, even so, here the court instructed the jury that it had to find that Vera "maliciously tried to prevent or discourage . . . Limon from attending or giving testimony" to convict him of this offense. (Italics added.) As the Attorney General notes, the trial court required the prosecution to meet a higher threshold than the statutory requirements for a conviction under this subdivision. "Because the instructions were unduly favorable to defendant, he cannot complain." (People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 421.)

Moreover, Vera has not shown from the "totality" of evidence why the jury could not find that he acted with malice. (People v. McElroy, supra, 126 Cal.App.4th at p. 881.) He threatened to kill Limon and placed her in fear for her life. After the police served him with an emergency protective order, he repeatedly violated it by calling her. During one of those calls, Limon told him that he was violating the court order. But he called again. Vera testified that he knowingly violated the protective order which prohibited him from contacting her despite her repeated requests that he not call. Consequently, he had a contemptuous attitude towards the order and Limons rights. He also made the threat that he would seek revenge against those responsible for his incarceration. With specific reference to Limon, he said, "I want vengeance." Jurors could reasonably infer his attempt to dissuade her from testifying was part of Veras continuing oppressive course of conduct to intimidate her and retaliate. Veras remaining contentions are without merit.

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur:

YEGAN, J.

COFFEE, J. --------------- Notes: All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.


Summaries of

People v. Vera

Court of Appeal of California
Jul 30, 2008
2d Crim. No. B199126 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 30, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Vera

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICARDO LIMON VERA, Defendant and…

Court:Court of Appeal of California

Date published: Jul 30, 2008

Citations

2d Crim. No. B199126 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 30, 2008)