P. v. Calzadilas

Filed 5/2/06 P. v. Calzadilas CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 SIX

Appellant Luis Arnaldo Calzadillas was convicted by jury of two counts of receiving stolen property (counts 1 and 4) (Pen. Code § 496, subd. (a))^[1] and was sentenced as a second strike offender (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subd. (b)-(i)) to a total term of eight years four months in state prison. His sentence consisted of six years on count 1, a consecutive term of one year four months on count 4, plus a one-year enhancement for his prior prison term. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).) Appellant contends there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions. We affirm.

FACTS

Darell Flowers, a tractor-trailer operator, drove a load of Home Depot garden products from Kansas to California. En route to the City of Industry, he stopped in San Bernardino to visit his children. At about midnight, Flowers parked on a street next to a Chevron gas station and a Wal‑Mart Store. He sat in his truck while he waited for his ride to arrive. During the 10- to 15-minute wait, he noticed a white Cadillac Escalade SUV driving continuously up and down the street and circling through the Wal‑Mart parking lot. The Escalade was new and still bore dealer license plates. Flowers could see the driver "scanning" the area. Flowers' ride arrived and parked at the Chevron station. Flowers walked to the car and saw the Escalade parked at the pumps. The driver appeared to be a male Hispanic, although Flowers did not get a close look at his face.

The following morning, Flowers returned to the spot where he had parked his truck and found it was gone. His trailer had a tracking device so he contacted his dispatcher who directed him to an address on Slauson and Industry in Pico Rivera. When he arrived at the location, he saw his trailer backed into the loading dock of a warehouse. Several men were unloading the freight. Some appeared to be carrying rifles. Flowers contacted the police. After they arrived, he saw the Escalade being driven away from the warehouse. Flowers notified an officer who apprehended the driver, codefendant Omar Peña. Appellant was not in the Escalade.

On two occasions before trial, Flowers identified Peña as the driver of the Escalade. At trial, however, he testified that appellant was the driver he saw near the warehouse. On cross-examination, Flowers admitted he was "not 100 percent sure" that appellant had driven the Escalade away from the warehouse.

Detective Steven Blagg, a deputy sheriff with the cargo criminal apprehension team, responded to the report of a cargo theft at a warehouse in Pico Rivera. Thirty-seven pallets of garden products, destined for Home Depot, had been unloaded from Flowers' trailer. They were found in a portion of the warehouse that was subleased to MRT Trucking.

Personal property belonging to Flowers was recovered from the Escalade: a CB radio, car stereo, a personalized log book, a laptop computer and a bag containing videos and clothing. The officers did not fingerprint those items to determine if appellant had handled them. Flowers testified that his dashboard was damaged. "They took my stereo out. They cut wires, all kind of stuff just tore up in there."

The Escalade was registered to appellant and his wife. They owned a trucking company, LAC Trucking. Affixed to the visor on the driver's side of the Escalade were business cards for LAC Trucking and a Polaroid photograph of appellant and his wife.

At the time of the offense, appellant had been an informant for the California Highway Patrol (CHP) cargo theft interdiction program for approximately one year. He provided information regarding cargo theft suspects, the location of stolen trailers and tractors and goods. Appellant portrayed himself as a broker of stolen property to whom individuals would bring "samples" so he could find buyers for the property. If appellant believed a theft was going to occur, he would provide the CHP with a sample of the stolen goods, so the CHP could identify its source.

Appellant and codefendant Omar Peña were tried together. The jury found appellant guilty of receiving stolen gardening products from Home Depot (count 1) and receiving property stolen from Darell Flowers: a laptop computer, CB radio and a car stereo (count 4). Peña is not a party to this appeal.

Appellant filed a motion for a new trial challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. The court denied the motion stating, "The court thinks that it's a reasonable inference for the jury to have made and the court made that Mr. [Peña] was using the Escalade with [appellant's] permission and that they were working together. I don't believe the evidence supports any other reasonable inference."

DISCUSSION

Standard of Review

We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence by examining the record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains evidence of reasonable, credible, and solid value, which a rational trier of fact could use to find the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Elliot (2005) 37 Cal.4th 453, 466.) The jury is entitled to draw reasonable inferences and a reviewing court must decide whether the evidence justifies the jury's verdict. (People v. Bohana (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 360, 368.) The standard of review is the same even where the evidence is circumstantial. (Elliot, at p. 466; People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 396.)

Sufficiency of the Evidence

In his opening brief, appellant states that the court's ruling on his motion for a new trial "certainly raises a suspicion that Omar [Peña] and [he] knew each other and that [he] lent Omar [Peña] his Escalade with knowledge that [Peña] was going to use the Escalade to commit a theft of the tractor trailer of Darel[l] Flowers and to store stolen good[s] in the tractor trailer." Appellant claims, however, that his convictions were based solely on the evidence that the Escalade was registered to him and his wife, and that their photograph and business cards were found inside the Escalade. He argues there was no evidence that he knew Peña, that he had an interest in MRT Trucking, had ever been inside the warehouse or handled the stolen merchandise.

The elements of receiving stolen property require (1) stolen property; (2) knowledge that the property was stolen; and (3) possession of the stolen property. (§ 496, subd. (a); People v. Price (1991) 1 Cal.4th 324, 464; People v. King (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 472, 476.)^[2] Proof that the defendant knew the property was stolen may be circumstantial and deductive. (People v. Boinus (1957) 153 Cal.App.2d 618, 621.) Possession may be actual or constructive and need not be exclusive. (People v. Grant (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 579, 596; People v. Land (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 220, 223.) It is necessary only that the defendant "'acquires a measure of control or dominion over the stolen property.'" (Grant, at p. 596.) It is undisputed that the Escalade was the property of appellant and his wife. They were the registered owners and used the vehicle, as evidenced by the presence of their photograph and business cards on the visor. Although appellant was not in physical possession of the Escalade when the offenses were committed, he was in constructive possession by virtue of his ownership.

Here, a white Escalade was seen driving near Flowers' parked tractor-trailer in San Bernardino. Several hours later, his Home Depot freight was unloaded into a warehouse in Pico Rivera. A white Escalade, registered to appellant and his wife, drove away from the warehouse. Omar Peña was the driver. From this evidence, a jury could have reasonably inferred that Peña, using appellant's car, participated in the theft of Flowers' tractor-trailer and facilitated delivery of the goods to a warehouse in Pico Rivera.

Flowers' personal belongings were removed from his tractor-trailer and placed in the Escalade. Appellant, as owner of the Escalade, had constructive possession of the stolen goods. No evidence was presented to show that Peña was using the Escalade without appellant's knowledge or permission. A jury could reasonably infer that appellant and Peña were working together to receive property stolen from Flowers and Home Depot. The evidence was sufficient to support appellant's convictions on counts 1 and 4.

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

COFFEE, J.

We concur:

YEGAN, Acting P.J.

PERREN, J.

Patrick T. Meyers, Judge

Superior Court County of Los Angeles

______________________________

Vincent James Oliver for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Mary Sanchez, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Stephanie A. Miyoshi, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Publication Courtesy of California lawyer directory.

Analysis and review provided by Escondido Apartment Manager Lawyers.

^[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

^[2] A person is guilty of receiving stolen property when he or she "buys or receives any property that has been stolen . . . knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained, or who conceals, sells, withholds, or aids in concealing, selling, or withholding any property from the owner, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained . . . ." (§ 496, subd. (a), italics added.)