From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Rodriguez

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Seventh Division
Jun 25, 2007
No. B192538 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 25, 2007)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANDREAS RODRIGUEZ, Defendant and Appellant. B192538 California Court of Appeal, Second District, Seventh Division June 25, 2007

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA088565, Dewey Lawes Falcone, Judge.

Christine C. Shaver, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Keith H. Borjon and Sarah J. Farhat, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

JOHNSON, J.

Andreas Rodriguez appeals from the judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of attempted first degree murder. He asserts insufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation compels reversal of his conviction. We affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. The Charges

Rodriguez was charged by information with one count of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 664). The information specially alleged firearm enhancements under sections 12022.53, subdivisions (b) through (d) and a criminal street gang enhancement under section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C). The information also specially alleged the attempted murder was willful, deliberate and premeditated within the meaning of section 664, subdivision (a).

Statutory references are to the Penal Code.

The trial court granted the People’s motion to consolidate Rodriguez’s case (L.A.S.C. no. VA090821) with that of codefendant Luis Ricardo Garcia (L.A.S.C. no. VA088565). Rodriguez and Garcia were tried together by jury.

2. Summary of the Evidence Presented at Trial Relevant to Rodriguez

On the night of April 15, 2005, Jose Silva drove his nephew Richy S. and two other minors, Jorge C. and Alexis, to a liquor store in Los Angeles. The four of them entered the store together, but after about five minutes, Richy S. and Jorge C. left to wait outside the store for the others.

A white truck drove up to them and stopped. Inside the truck were six people, including Rodriguez, who was in the front passenger seat. Rodriguez rested a handgun on the window frame of the front passenger door and asked Richy S. and Jorge C. where they “were from.” Jorge C. understood Rodriguez was asking what gang they were from, because Rodriguez had put the same question to him at school, before telling Jorge C. he belonged to the Varrio Grape Street Gang (Grape Street). Richy S. responded to Rodriguez by raising his hands and repeatedly saying he was “from nowhere.” Rodriguez and the other truck passengers began yelling “Fuck Sniveys,” referring to the Ivy Street Gang (Ivy Street) in whose territory the store was located. Jorge S. turned to run into the store and Rodriguez started shooting. He fired about nine shots at the two minors. Jorge S. fled into the store and heard tires screeching as the truck sped away. Richy S. attempted to return to the store but collapsed at the entrance. He had been shot in the chest, hand, leg and stomach.

Police officers in the area heard gun shots and pursued the speeding white truck until it crashed into a police car. Before the crash, the truck doors flew open and six men jumped out. Officers eventually found the driver, codefendant Garcia. He subsequently told police he was once a gang member but was no longer active. Garcia explained on the night of April 15, 2005, he had offered a ride to some members of Grape Street following a funeral. As Garcia drove, one of his passengers directed him where to go. At one point Garcia was told to slow down; he complied, eventually stopping the truck. Garcia heard an exchange of words between a passenger and some men outside the truck. Garcia then heard gunfire and saw the front passenger shooting through the truck window. Garcia immediately accelerated and sped away.

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Detective Tom Mayberry, a gang expert, opined Rodriguez was an active gang member and the shooting was committed to benefit Grape Street by enhancing its reputation. According to Mayberry, Grape Street members were exhibiting their dominance and fearlessness by entering territory claimed by Ivy Street, using a derogatory version of the rival gang’s name, and shooting those believed to be Ivy Street members. The shooting demonstrated the willingness of Grape Street to retaliate against any future harm by Ivy Street, whether or not the shooting victims turned out to be members of the rival gang. Mayberry knew there were gang field identification cards for Rodriguez and codefendant Garcia. Rodriguez had been previously stopped in a stolen van with another known gang member.

Jorge C. identified Rodriguez as the shooter from a pretrial photographic lineup and a live lineup. Police recovered expended nine-millimeter shell casings and two expended bullets from the shooting scene. Richy S. underwent surgery, was hospitalized for four weeks, and had difficulty walking for about one month.

Rodriguez neither testified nor presented additional evidence in his defense.

3. The Verdict and Sentencing

The jury convicted Rodriguez as charged and found true the firearm and criminal street gang enhancements. The trial court sentenced Rodriguez to an aggregate state prison term of 40 years to life: a life term for attempted first degree murder, with a minimum eligible parole date of 15 years for the criminal street gang enhancement, plus 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement under section 12022.53, subdivision (d). Rodriguez timely filed a notice of appeal.

Codefendant Garcia was also convicted as charged. He is not a party to this appeal.

DISCUSSION

Rodriguez contends there was insufficient evidence of prior calculation, planning and motive to support the jury’s finding of premeditation and deliberation. Specifically, he argues the evidence shows “the shooting was rash and impulsive.” In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, “we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.] Reversal on this ground is unwarranted unless it appears ‘that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support [the conviction].’ [Citation.]”

People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331; see also People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578.

In People v. Anderson the California Supreme Court laid out a framework to assist reviewing courts in assessing whether the evidence supports an inference of premeditated murder. The Supreme Court identified three categories of evidence which could support a finding of premeditation: facts showing prior planning, facts showing motive and facts about the manner of the killing which show a preconceived plan. However, as the Court later explained, “‘Anderson does not require that these factors be present in some special combination or that they be accorded a particular weight, nor is the list exhaustive. Anderson was simply intended to guide an appellate court’s assessment whether the evidence supports an inference that the killing occurred as the result of preexisting reflection rather than unconsidered or rash impulse. [Citation.]’” The record here shows evidence of preexisting reflection and deliberation under each of the Anderson categories.

People v. Anderson (1968) 70 Cal.2d 15, 26-27.

People v. Anderson, supra, 70 Cal.2d at pages 26-27.

People v. Bolin, supra, 18 Cal.4th at pages 331-332; see also People v. Mayfield (1997) 14 Cal.4th 668, 767 [premeditated and deliberated conduct involves thoughtful, though not necessarily protracted, consideration beforehand].

Among the facts showing prior planning is the evidence Rodriguez, a Grape Street member, was in a truck with some fellow gang members when he and/or they directed Garcia to drive into known Ivy Street territory. Rodriguez had brought a gun with him and had positioned himself by a truck window, enabling him to display the gun to anyone outside the truck.

See People v. Adcox (1988) 47 Cal.3d 207, 240 [bringing gun to shooting scene is evidence of prior planning].

The motive for the shooting was plain. It is undisputed Grape Street and Ivy Street were enemies. Rodriguez and fellow gang members yelled an insulting form of the Ivy Street name just before Rodriguez began shooting at Jorge C. and Richy S. Killing someone believed to be a member of Ivy Street or within territory claimed Ivy Street territory would promote Grape Street as the preeminent gang in the area.

The manner of the shooting also supports the conclusion it was planned in advance. The truck pulled up to Jorge C. and Richy S., and Rodriguez immediately inquired about their gang affiliation. Although both denied gang membership and did nothing to provoke Rodriguez, he fired nine shots at both unarmed minors after yelling, “Fuck Sniveys” in Ivy Street territory.

These facts in combination suffice to support the jury’s special finding the attempted murder was willful, deliberate and premeditated.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: PERLUSS, P. J. WOODS, J.


Summaries of

People v. Rodriguez

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Seventh Division
Jun 25, 2007
No. B192538 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 25, 2007)
Case details for

People v. Rodriguez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANDREAS RODRIGUEZ, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, Seventh Division

Date published: Jun 25, 2007

Citations

No. B192538 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 25, 2007)