P. v. Bryant
Filed 5/9/13 P. v. Bryant CA2/5
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
FIVE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
AMEEN ALI BRYANT,
Defendant and Appellant.
B245100
(Los Angeles
County Super.
Ct.
No. VA117610)
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court
of
County, Raul A. Sahagun, Judge. Affirmed.
Jennifer M.
Hansen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
______________________________
Following a
jury trial, defendant and appellant Ameen Ali Bryant was convicted in count 6
of participation in a criminal street
gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (a)),
a firearm in the commission of the offense (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)). The jury was unable to reach verdicts on two
counts of robbery (§ 211). In
return for an agreed upon concurrent sentence of two years in state prison,
defendant entered a plea of no contest to one count of robbery. The trial court, in compliance with the
agreement, sentenced defendant to concurrent two-year terms in state prison and
struck the armed allegation in count 6.
Defendant
filed a timely notice of appeal,
specifically stating his intent to challenge the conviction in count 6. This court appointed counsel to represent
defendant on appeal. On March 27, 2013,
appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues and requesting this court to
review the record independently for arguable appellate contentions pursuant to
Defendant
was advised of his right to file a
supplemental brief. After being
granted an extension of time, defendant filed a letter brief arguing he is not
a gang member, has never been a gang member, and the tattoos he has are not
gang-related. He further contends he was
coerced into pleading no contest to the robbery and only did so to get out of
custody, where he was being “attacked and harassed.â€
1.
Sufficiency of the Evidence of Gang Participation
Defendant
argues the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction of being an
active participate in a criminal street gang.
We disagree.
a.
Standard of Review and Elements of the Offense
“When we review a challenge to the
evidence standard.
Under that standard the reviewing
court examines the entire record to determine whether or not there is
substantial evidence from which a reasonable jury could find beyond a
reasonable doubt that the crime has been committed. In reviewing that evidence the appellate court
does not make credibility determinations and
all reasonable inferences in favor of the trial court’s decision. We do not
weigh the evidence but rather ask whether there is sufficient reasonable
credible evidence of solid value that would support the conviction. (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d
557, 576–578.)†(People v. Russell (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 981, 987-988.)
Section
186.22, subdivision (a), punishes “[a]ny person who actively participates in
any criminal street gang with knowledge that its members engage in or have
engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity, and who willfully promotes,
furthers, or assists in any felonious criminal conduct by members of that gang
. . . .â€
elements of the gang participation offense in section 186.22(a) are: First, active participation in a criminal
street gang, in the sense of participation that is more than nominal or
passive; second, knowledge that the gang’s members engage in or have engaged in
a pattern of criminal gang activity; and third, the willful promotion,
furtherance, or assistance in any felonious criminal conduct by members of that
gang. (People v. Lamas (2007) 42
Cal.4th 516, 523 (Lamas).)†(People
v. Rodriguez (2012) 55 Cal.4th 1125, 1130.)
b. Facts Supporting the Gang Offense
The
prosecution presented evidence of a series of robberies and an attempted
robbery committed by various members of the Avalon Garden Crips, the gang of
defendant and codefendant Adrian Deon Hunter.
Defendant was charged in two of those robberies. Officer Keith Soboleski testified to his
investigation of three robberies and one attempted robbery taking place on September 28, 2010. There were two participants depicted in
videos in each offense—one wearing a black hoodie and the other in a gray hoodie. He spoke to Detective Armando Leyva at the
Southeast Division of the Los Angeles Police Department, who identified the two
as members of the Avalon Garden Crips gang.
Detective
Leyva, a gang expert familiar with the Avalon Garden Crips, testified to the
gang signs, the area of the gang, and the member’s common attire. He knew defendant as a gang member from prior
arrests. Defendant had a moniker of
“Tiny Mac Manson.†Defendant had no
tattoos when arrested by Detective Leyva, but by the time of trial he had an
“A†by his right eye and an “M†by his left eye. The detective believed the “M†could
represent the Most Wanted Gangster clique of the gang. Detective Leyva knew codefendant Hunter to be
an Avalon Garden Crip member. He
testified to other qualifying offenses committed by members of the gang and
opined the robberies were committed for the benefit of the gang by raising
necessary funds and intimidating the community through violence, which enhanced
the gang’s stature.
c.
Analysis
Viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, there is substantial
evidence to support the conviction in count 6.
Defendant was an active gang member, as established by Detective Leyva
and corroborated by the gang tattoos on his face. Defendant was aware of the gang’s criminal
activities, in that there was evidence of his participation in robberies. His active participation assisted other gang
members in their felonious activities.
While the jury could have drawn other inferences from the evidence, it
chose not to do so, and the jury’s finding in count 6 is based on credible
evidence of solid value.
2. Challenge to the Validity of the No Contest
Plea
Defendant’s contention that he was coerced into entering
the no contest plea is not substantiated by the record on appeal. Our review on direct appeal is limited to
matters in the appellate record. That
record contains no suggestion of coercion in securing the plea, nor does it
contain evidence that events in the county jail played any role in defendant’s
decision to resolve the case. What the
record does demonstrate is that defendant, already facing up to four years in
state prison as a result of his conviction in count 6, minimized his losses by
resolving the robbery charges that remained after the hung jury on
exceptionally favorable terms that minimized his exposure to punishment and
secured an immediate release from custody.
Having failed to establish error based on the record on appeal, we reject
defendant’s challenge to his plea. (Cal.
Const., art. VI, § 13.)
3.
Independent Review of the Record
We have completed our
independent review of the record. There
are no arguable issues overlooked by appointed counsel. The judgment is affirmed. (Smith v. Robbins
(2000) 528 U.S. 259.)
KRIEGLER,
J.
We concur:
TURNER,
P. J. MOSK,
J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] All
statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise stated.
