Opinion
C088739
06-05-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SANTOI RAYMON THOMPSON, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 17FE011062)
A jury found defendant Santoi Raymon Thompson guilty of three counts of attempted robbery and eight counts of robbery. (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 211.) On appeal, defendant contends insufficient evidence supports one of the attempted robberies. Disagreeing, we affirm.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
BACKGROUND
On December 28, 2016, O.K. was on Mack Road in Sacramento to meet a seller of an iPhone who was texting using phone number (916) 573-4626. When O.K. showed the seller he had the money for the phone, the seller pointed a gun at him and told him to hand over the money. The seller ran away after someone approached. O.K. identified defendant from a photo lineup as the man who attempted to rob him.
On February 17, 2017, J.M. was at an apartment on Rivergate Way in Sacramento to reconnect with a woman he had met earlier at a gas station who was texting using phone number (916) 825-8421. When J.M. was at the apartment, a man approached him, showed a gun, and demanded money; J.M. ran away before giving anything to the man.
Defendant contends the Rivergate Way address is not evidence because J.M. did not remember the address at trial. The prosecutor provided J.M. with his prior statement to police to refresh his memory and when asked whether he told the officer the Rivergate Way address, J.M. testified, "It said in the statement, but I can't in my mind remember that." He then affirmed he was truthful with the police and that the events were more clear in his mind when they had just happened. This renders the Rivergate Way address admissible evidence. (Evid. Code, § 1237; see People v. Sanchez (2019) 7 Cal.5th 14, 41-42 [finding admissible prior statement where witness could not remember contents of statement but remembered truthfully making statement].)
On February 21, 2017, X.X. was on San Luis Court in Sacramento to meet a woman named Savannah he found through an ad on Backpage.com (a website utilized by prostitutes and their customers), who was texting using the same 825 number used in J.M.'s incident. A man showed X.X. a handgun and demanded money before leaving after a car drove by.
On April 4, 2017, M.S. was robbed at gunpoint on Rivergate Way in Sacramento after texting with someone claiming to have found his lost wallet who was using the same 573 number as O.K.'s incident. M.S. tracked his stolen phone to Wainscot Way before it was turned off.
Between April 2017 and June 2017, there were seven more robberies at gunpoint where the victims were lured to a specified location with the Savannah ad on Backpage and texting with the 573 number: J.D. was robbed on San Luis Court; D.S. and M.M. on Vallejo Way; C.T., S.S., and B.M. on Wainscot Way; and V.D. on Rivergate Way. V.D. was originally directed by the someone with the 573 number to meet Savannah on Wainscot Way before being redirected to Rivergate Way. (1 RT 167-168, 274) Also, five of these robbery victims--D.S., C.T., V.D., S.S., and B.M.--identified defendant as the robber from a photo lineup.
On June 14, 2017, police executed a search warrant at a home on Wainscot Way. Defendant was at the home during the search and police took defendant's phone and recovered J.D.'s stolen wallet among defendant's possessions at the house. Defendant admitted to occasionally spending the night at the Wainscot Way house. An e-mail address associated with the billing information for the Backpage ad for Savannah was found on defendant's phone along with contacts from Backpage. Police also discovered the 825 number had gone inactive in March 2017 and it was registered to someone living at the Wainscot Way address. Defendant admitted to having used the 573 number at least once.
Defendant was charged with three counts of attempted robbery for O.K. (count one), J.M. (count two), and X.X. (count three), and eight counts of robbery for M.S. (count four), J.D. (count five), D.S. (count six), M.M. (count seven), C.T. (count eight), V.D. (count nine), S.S. (count ten), and B.M. (count eleven). (§§ 664, 211.) The jury found defendant guilty on all 11 counts.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, defendant contends insufficient evidence supported the finding he committed the attempted robbery of J.M. because J.M. did not identify defendant and this crime did not match the modus operandi of the other crimes that used the Backpage ad and the 573 number. We find the evidence sufficient.
We review the record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence. (People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 66.) Substantial evidence 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." (Ibid.) From the evidence, we draw all inferences supporting the jury's verdict. (People v. Olguin (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1382.) Before the judgment can be set aside for insufficient evidence, "it must clearly appear that on no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the verdict of the jury." (People v. Hicks (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 423, 429.) " ' "This standard applies whether direct or circumstantial evidence is involved." ' " (People v. Thompson (2010) 49 Cal.4th 79, 113.) Modus operandi is a form of circumstantial evidence allowing a jury to infer two crimes " 'were committed by the same person when the marks common to those offenses set them apart from other offenses of the same general variety.' " (People v. Green (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 369, 376.) A modus operandi can alone be substantial evidence. (People v. Rehmeyer (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1758, 1765-1766 [finding substantial evidence of criminal intent based on a defendant's prior crime with the same modus operandi].)
Here, a jury could reasonably conclude defendant was the person who attempted to rob J.M. based on both circumstantial evidence indicating defendant's involvement as well as a very specific modus operandi that permits inferring defendant's identity. The 825 number used to lure J.M. was used by defendant four days later to lure X.X. using the Backpage ad for Savannah. The 825 number was also registered to someone living at the Wainscot Way home. Wainscot Way is where defendant was found when the police executed the search warrant, where police found defendant's possessions, and where defendant admits he occasionally spent the night. Further, J.M.'s incident occurred on Rivergate Way, where defendant robbed both V.D. and M.S. Defendant originally told V.D. to go to Wainscot Way before telling him to go to Rivergate Way. M.S. tracked his stolen phone from Rivergate Way to Wainscot Way. Defendant's ties with Wainscot Way, his previous crimes at Rivergate Way, and his subsequent repeated use of the 825 number are sufficient for the jury to reasonably conclude defendant was the person who attempted to rob J.M.
Similarly, a jury could reasonably infer defendant's identity from a modus operandi. The location and method of luring J.M. uniquely match defendant's other crimes. As discussed, defendant robbed V.D. and M.S. on Rivergate Way. J.M. was also lured to Rivergate Way through texting with someone he thought was a woman, much like defendant's use of "Savannah" to lure eight other victims. Defendant's crimes also all occurred within six months of each other. These specific identifiers, or "marks," within a very limited timeframe, set J.M.'s incident apart from a stand-alone attempted robbery and support the inference of defendant's identity. Thus, this modus operandi is independently substantial evidence supporting the jury's finding that defendant attempted to rob J.M.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
Duarte, J. We concur: /s/_________
Blease, Acting P. J. /s/_________
Krause, J.