People v. Schoppe-Rico
Filed 6/29/06
CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOHN MOSES SCHOPPE-RICO, Defendant and Appellant. | A104363 (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 05011510-5) |
I. Introduction
Appellant John Moses Schoppe-Rico was convicted by a jury of shooting at an occupied vehicle; first degree murder, with a firearm enhancement; and carrying a loaded, concealed firearm while an active participant in a criminal street gang. On appeal, he contends that the statutes defining the street gang firearm offenses require proof that his possession of the firearm occurred in connection with his active gang participation. In the published portion of this opinion, we examine and interpret the street gang firearm possession statutes, and conclude, as a matter of first impression, that they do not require proof that the charged firearm possession was connected with the underlying gang participation. We therefore reject appellant's argument that his convictions under those statutes must be reversed.
Appellant also contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence stemming from a dog scent discrimination lineup without first determining the scientific validity of that evidence; that there was insufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation to support his first degree murder conviction; and that the trial court erred in denying his post-conviction motion for new counsel without an adequate inquiry. In addition, he asserts that the judgment should be modified to specify that his determinate sentences on the vehicle shooting and firearms charges are to be served concurrently with his indeterminate sentences on the murder charge and related firearm enhancement. In the unpublished portion of this opinion, we accept appellant's contention regarding the concurrent nature of his sentences, and modify the judgment accordingly. With that exception, we reject all of appellant's arguments, and affirm the judgment in its entirety.
II. Factual and Procedural Background
A. The Car Wash Shooting
On September 4, 2000, appellant's then girlfriend, Jennifer Smith, decided that she wanted to â€
