P. v. Ruiz
Filed 3/9/07 P. v. Ruiz CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARICELA RUIZ, Defendant and Appellant. | D048648 (Super. Ct. No. JCF16557) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Annie M. Gutierrez, Judge. Affirmed as modified.
A jury convicted Maricela Ruiz of felony misapplication of records (Gov. Code, 6200) and misdemeanor destruction of evidence (Pen. Code, 135). The court ordered Ruiz to serve three years' probation. On appeal, Ruiz contends: (1) the sentencing minute order erroneously provides that the destruction of evidence conviction is a felony, and (2) insufficient evidence supports the convictions.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Ruiz worked at the Calexico Police Department as the records supervisor. As part of her duties, she received and logged original police reports, then gave them to another clerk to file with the district attorney. In response to a complaint from the commissioner of juvenile hall, Ruiz's supervisor, Lt. Jill Tangedal, searched Ruiz's desk for requests to seal juvenile records. In addition to several unprocessed juvenile records notices, Tangedal found old unfiled police reports in Ruiz's work area and among Ruiz's personal items, including an eight-month-old driving under the influence report and a faulty equipment ticket both for Eduardo Rodriguez, an acquaintance of Ruiz's daughter. Tangedal also found several other stale tickets, including a vandalism report over a year old for a vehicle owned by Ruiz and a month-old ticket for running a red light for Andrew Zamudia, Ruiz's former neighbor.
DISCUSSION
Erroneous Minute Order
Ruiz contends, and the People agree, the minute order for her sentencing hearing erroneously provides the destruction of evidence conviction is a felony. Penal Code section 135 states "[e]very person who, knowing that any book, paper, record, instrument in writing, or other matter or thing, is about to be produced in evidence upon any trial, inquiry, or investigation whatever, authorized by law, willfully destroys or conceals the same, with intent thereby to prevent it from being produced, is guilty of a misdemeanor." (Italics added.) The trial court is directed to issue a new minute order providing that Ruiz's destruction of evidence conviction is a misdemeanor.
Substantial Evidence Supports the Convictions
Under the standard of substantial evidence, we "review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence--that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value--such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578.) The function of the appellate court is not to reweigh the evidence (People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206) and reversal is not warranted merely because the circumstances might also be reasonably reconciled with a contrary finding. (People v. Thomas (1992) 2 Cal.4th 489, 514.)
Government Code section 6200 prohibits a custodian of public records from willfully secreting any record. Penal Code section 135 prohibits willfully concealing any record to be produced upon any investigation. "Willful" does not mean intent to violate the law, and "inasmuch as no showing of specific intent is required . . . , an officer who knowingly removes or destroys such a document is punishable even though he acts without a criminal purpose." (Loder v. Municipal Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 859, 863; Pen. Code, 7.)
Here, Ruiz contends insufficient evidence supports her convictions because there is no evidence she purposefully hid any documents. Tangedal testified Ruiz was in possession of old original police reports, and some were found mixed in with Ruiz's personal items. Ruiz testified she knew Eduardo Rodriguez and Andrew Zamudia, the subjects of three of the tickets or reports. The jury could have reasonably inferred willfulness from the evidence that Ruiz placed certain tickets or reports aside and evidence of her acquaintance with the two men who had received three of the tickets in question.
The defense presented evidence Ruiz "misplaced" the tickets and reports because of understaffing and confusion during a relocation of the records office. The jury apparently discredited this explanation, and we will not disturb this finding merely because the "circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding." (People v. Thomas, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 514.) We do note, however, the inefficiency and unreliability of a system in which police reports can be "misplaced." This case should alert the Calexico Police Department that it needs to modify its system to ensure oversight of the filing of reports and tickets.
DISPOSITION
The trial court is directed to modify its minute order to provide that the destruction of evidence conviction is a misdemeanor. The judgment is otherwise affirmed.
McDONALD, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
AARON, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line Lawyers.
