P. v. Shade
Filed 6/8/06 P. v. Shade CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JEFFREY LAMONT SHADE, Defendant and Appellant. | B179312 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA068072) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
Jerry E. Johnson, Judge. Affirmed.
Joanie P. Chen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Marc E. Turchin, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Richard S. Moskowitiz, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Jeffrey Shade appeals from the revocation of his probation based on his commission of a burglary even though a jury acquitted him of that charge. Our high court has concluded that the standard of proof in a probation revocation hearing differs from trial, and the judge conducting such a hearing may reject the credibility determinations of the jury. (In re Coughlin (1976) 16 Cal.3d 52, 59 (Coughlin).) Following this standard, we find the trial court's determination that Shade committed the burglary to be within the court's discretion and to be supported by substantial evidence notwithstanding the jury's contrary verdict. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May 28, 2004, someone broke into Antonio Gonzales's home, ransacked his living room and bedroom, and took a camera and jewelry. Shade and a co-defendant, Sirius Conway, were charged with burglary and tried by jury. Because the testimony of each witness is relevant to assessing Shade's arguments on appeal, we describe the testimony at Shade's trial in detail.
Deputy Sheriff Woodard
On May 28, 2004, Deputy Sheriff Jeffrey Woodard responded to a call of a burglary in progress at Gonzales's house. Woodard approached the house and, from a distance of ten to fifteen feet, he briefly saw two individuals inside as they peered out the window. In court, Woodward identified Shade as one of the persons he saw inside Gonzales's house. Woodard saw only three-quarters of Shade's face. He did not notice that Shade had facial hair or a scar. Woodard identified Shade in a field show-up 30 to 45 minutes after the incident. At that time Shade was detained in the back of a police car.
On cross-examination, Woodard stated he recognized â€
