Opinion
G054802
06-05-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT JESUS WILSON, Defendant and Appellant.
Gerald J. Miller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Kristen Kinnaird Chenelia, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 15CF1967) OPINION Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gregg L. Prickett, Judge. Affirmed. Gerald J. Miller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Kristen Kinnaird Chenelia, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *
A jury convicted Robert Jesus Wilson of second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a), all further statutory references are to the Penal Code) for stabbing and killing Robert Carranza. Wilson contends insufficient evidence supports his conviction, alleging the prosecution failed to (1) prove Wilson acted with malice in killing Carranza; and (2) negate Wilson's claim of imperfect self-defense. Neither of these contentions has merit, and we therefore affirm the judgment.
FACTS
Surveillance videos showed Wilson riding his bike through Frontier Park in Tustin shortly after 2:00 p.m. on August 18, 2015. Thereafter, Wilson was seen at a liquor store purchasing Budweiser beer and cigarettes. At 2:37 p.m., Wilson returned to Frontier Park with another person. At 3:14 p.m., Wilson was at Frontier Park with Carranza and David Sanchez. Surveillance video showed Wilson pull his arm back and stab Carranza. Video also showed Carranza run from Frontier Park to a convenience store, where he collapsed, and ultimately died. Cause of death was exsanguination, blood loss, caused by a three-inch long horizontal cut on his neck.
After the incident, Wilson rode his bike out of Frontier Park. Tustin police stopped and questioned Sanchez a few blocks from Frontier Park. Police discovered two pipe wrenches, two drill bits, and four Budweiser beer cans. Police then searched Frontier Park, finding Carranza's belongings, a twelve-pack of Budweiser beer missing some cans, a beer can with Carranza's DNA on it, and two cigarette butts with Wilson's DNA on them. Police also recovered a black pouch with about three and a quarter grams of methamphetamine, a syringe, a glass pipe, a cotton swab, and a shot glass. No murder weapon was found.
Later that same afternoon, Wilson called a friend and asked him to a movie. Wilson told his friend he "fucked up," had hurt somebody, and if he was caught, he would "do a day." According to the friend, Wilson made no mention of acting in self-defense. The following day the friend read about a man being killed in the park and called the police.
According to trial testimony, "I'm going to do a day" means serve a life sentence in prison. --------
On August 26, 2015, officers located Wilson in Palm Desert. Wilson attempted to flee when police arrived, but he was ultimately apprehended and arrested at gunpoint. Police collected a pair of Wilson's jeans which had Carranza's blood inside the front pockets.
On February 4, 2016, an information charged Wilson with murder (count 1; § 187, subd. (a)) and use of a deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). It further alleged Wilson had two prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (d), (e)(2)(A)) and two prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)).
At trial, Wilson testified he acted in self-defense. He claimed he was walking his bike in Frontier Park when Carranza yelled at him and waved him over. Carranza asked Wilson if he remembered him; Wilson said no. Carranza then asked Wilson if he wanted to do drugs. Wilson declined and went to buy beer. Wilson testified he returned to the park after buying beer, and laid down to take a nap.
Wilson stated Carranza and Sanchez then approached him and Carranza again asked Wilson if he remembered him. Wilson noticed Carranza had what appeared to be a gang tattoo on his head. Wilson also said Carranza was "scruffy" and appeared "loaded," but he was being friendly. Wilson noticed Sanchez, who was not very big, had a backpack with him on the ground with tools, including a pipe wrench, sticking out of it.
Wilson overheard Carranza on the phone talking about selling stolen tools. Sanchez confirmed they were selling the tools to buy drugs, and Wilson told him he did not approve. Carranza then "exploded" and "went into a rage." He asked Wilson if he was a "rat" and asked him where he was from, in effect asking if Wilson was in a gang. Wilson told Carranza he was "from right here," and testified that Carranza began screaming at him saying "I know you're not from around here. I've been around. I'm a Sureno. I'm down for my shit." Carranza also told Wilson if he was a "rat," Carranza would "fuck [Wilson] up." Wilson claimed he was scared of Carranza and Sanchez because they had stolen property, Carranza was screaming, and Carranza again brought up gang membership.
Wilson testified as he began to leave, Carranza slammed into him, unsuccessfully grabbed for the knife on Wilson's waistband, and proceeded to head-butt him. Wilson grabbed his knife, opened it, and told Carranza to "get away." He claimed he was in fear for his life. Wilson swung his knife in a downward motion without looking at Carranza. He immediately knew Carranza had been stabbed, but claimed he did not know where he hit him or the severity of the wound. Wilson admitted he did not tell his friend he acted in self-defense, but denied telling him he had "fucked up."
The prosecution introduced evidence to rebut Wilson's assertion he was scared of Carranza because of his gang affiliation. The evidence showed police had contacted Carranza on four separate occasions between 2002 and 2014, and on each occasion Carranza said although he used to be a gang member, he was no longer active.
The prosecution also presented evidence of Wilson's prior convictions to rebut his claim he had never done more than brandish a knife. In 2006, Wilson was convicted of assaulting Michael Sullivan with a knife at a restaurant. Wilson said Sullivan screamed at him, and when he turned around to leave, Sullivan then made an abrupt movement that scared him, so he pulled out his knife. In 2009, Wilson was convicted of assault and battery and disturbing the peace. In 2013, he was convicted of battery. In 2014, Wilson was convicted of threatening a witness.
The jury was instructed on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of murder. The jury found Wilson guilty of second degree murder and found the weapon enhancement true. The trial court found the prior convictions and strike allegations true. The court sentenced Wilson to a total term of 56 years to life.
DISCUSSION
Wilson contends we should reverse the judgment, reduce his murder conviction to voluntary manslaughter, and remand the matter for resentencing because (1) the prosecution failed to establish Wilson acted with malice in killing Carranza; and (2) the prosecution failed to rebut Wilson's imperfect self-defense claim. As detailed below, we are unpersuaded by Wilson's arguments. We therefore affirm the judgment. I. Substantial Evidence Showed Wilson Acted with Malice
On Wilson's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction, we view the entire record "in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." (People v. Lindberg (2008) 45 Cal.4th 1, 27.) In applying the substantial evidence test, appellate courts must independently determine whether the evidence establishes each element beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Redmond (1969) 71 Cal.2d 745, 759-760.) The mere fact that contrary evidence was also presented does not render evidence insufficient. (People v. Lewis (2001) 26 Cal.4th 334, 361.) A reversal for insufficient evidence is unwarranted unless it appears "that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support" the verdict. (People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357.)
Murder is an unlawful killing with malice aforethought. (§ 187, subd. (a); People v. Elmore (2014) 59 Cal.4th 121, 132 (Elmore).) Malice may be express or implied. (§ 188; People v. Beltran (2013) 56 Cal.4th 935, 941 (Beltran).) Express malice is found when a defendant intends to kill. (§ 188; Beltran, supra, 56 Cal. 4th at p. 941.) Implied malice is shown when a killing results from an intentional act, the natural and probable consequences of which are dangerous to human life, deliberately performed with knowledge of the danger to, and with conscious disregard for, human life. (Elmore, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 133.) Implied malice exists when the defendant has a "conscious disregard that his conduct poses a high probability of death to some person," regardless of whether the victim was an intended or anticipated victim. (People v. Albright (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 883, 887.)
The prosecution presented substantial evidence demonstrating Wilson acted with implied malice. The evidence showed Wilson intentionally stabbed Carranza; it included video surveillance footage of the actual stabbing. Wilson testified he had the knife out before he stabbed Carranza. He said he stabbed Carranza because he was afraid Carranza and Sanchez would attack him.
While an individual who has been threatened may stand his ground (People v. Rhodes (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1346; CALCRIM No. 3470), the right to use self-defense may not be contrived. (People v. Enraca (2012) 53 Cal.4th 735, 761; CALCRIM No. 3472.) When self-defense is asserted the prosecution bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. (People v. Martinez (2003) 31 Cal.4th 673, 707.) These issues involve questions of fact, which in this case were resolved by the jury against Wilson.
Evidence presented at trial demonstrated that Wilson swung the knife at or near Carranza's neck. The natural and probable consequences of stabbing a person in the neck are dangerous to human life. Wilson also acted with a conscious disregard for human life. Surveillance video showed Wilson slashed the knife in close proximity to both Carranza and Sanchez. Wilson was, at the very least, aware of the risk that his intentional act could lead to death, whether or not he specifically intended to kill Carranza. Substantial evidence supported a finding of malice. II. The Prosecution Successfully Rebutted Wilson's Imperfect Self-Defense Claim
"A person who intentionally kills in unreasonable self-defense lacks malice and is guilty only of voluntary manslaughter, not murder." (People v. Blakeley (2000) 23 Cal.4th 82, 88.) Wilson argues the prosecution failed to rebut his imperfect self-defense claim because the uncontroverted evidence showed he had an actual, even if unreasonable, belief he was in imminent danger. We disagree.
Based on Wilson's own account of the crime, he did not actually believe he was in imminent danger. Carranza was unarmed and did not have the means to cause great bodily injury to Wilson. Sanchez was a bystander who was not very big and his bag of tools was on the ground. Carranza never made any immediate verbal threats to Wilson; he threatened to attack Wilson only if he was a "rat." Wilson did not tell Carranza he would go to the authorities. Carranza's conditional threat did not show Wilson was in imminent danger. In fact, Wilson testified he pulled his knife out, not because he was afraid or to defend himself, but to "secure it."
Wilson also claimed he was afraid of Carranza because of gang tattoos and his allegiance to a gang. The prosecution rebutted that assertion by introducing evidence regarding four separate occasions on which Carranza said he used to be a gang member but was no longer active.
Wilson's actions after the killing also undermined his claim of imperfect self-defense. Wilson's friend testified Wilson told him he "fucked up" by hurting someone and could do a life sentence. Wilson then went to Palm Desert, claiming it was preplanned. The jury, however, could have inferred from Wilson's flight and conduct a consciousness of guilt. (People v. Bonilla (2007) 41 Cal.4th 313, 328.)
Evidence at trial revealed a lengthy list of Wilson's prior convictions for assault and battery and brandishing a weapon. While the details of all of his convictions were not disclosed, the prosecution did introduce testimony from two of Wilson's prior victims who were beaten and threatened by Wilson without provocation. Wilson claimed he was drunk and did not remember what happened. The jury could have reasonably discredited Wilson's claim that he felt threatened by Carranza, based upon these prior assaults.
The prosecution presented substantial evidence that undermined and discredited Wilson's claim of imperfect self-defense. The jury was properly instructed on the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter. The verdict demonstrated the jury rejected Wilson's statements that he was in actual fear and determined he acted with malice in killing Carranza.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
GOETHALS, J. WE CONCUR: ARONSON, ACTING P. J. THOMPSON, J.