P. v. Estrada
Filed 7/10/13
P. v. Estrada CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.
IN THE COURT OF
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE
DISTRICT
(Yolo)
----
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ALEX VILLANUEVA
ESTRADA,
Defendant and Appellant.
C071401
(Super. Ct. No. CRF120525)
A jury convicted defendant Alex
Villanueva Estrada of taking and driving a motor vehicle without the owner’s
consent, and the trial court sentenced defendant to five years in state
prison.
Defendant now contends his trial
counsel rendered ineffective assistance by eliciting
during cross-examination. We conclude,
however, that defendant’s ineffective assistance claim fails because he has not
established prejudice.
We will affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
David Clayton parked his 1992 white
Buick Century in front of his house in February 2012. He left a key inside a metal box in the arm
rest of the Buick that opened the Buick’s doors, trunk and glove
compartment. The next morning, Clayton
noticed the Buick was gone. He reported
the missing car to the police.
Yolo County Sheriff’s Deputy Jamie
Rodriguez was on patrol, checking the license plates of cars in the parking
garage at Cache Creek Casino. Deputy
Rodriguez saw a 1992 white Buick Century in the garage, ran the license plate,
and learned that the Buick was reported stolen.
He noted that the Buick’s steering column was damaged.
Later that morning, Deputy Rodriguez
saw the Buick leave the parking garage.
He followed it, activated his emergency lights and attempted to make a
“felony stop†at a nearby convenience market.
Deputy Rodriguez and his partner got out of their marked squad car with
their guns drawn and approached the Buick.
Defendant, who was driving the Buick, looked back at them and drove
off. Deputy Rodriguez and his partner
pursued defendant, with emergency lights and siren activated, for approximately
a quarter mile before defendant pulled over and surrendered.
A search of defendant’s person
revealed a car key and Clayton’s vehicle registration. Defendant said the key opened the doors and
trunk of the Buick. The deputies photographed
damage to the driver’s side door lock and steering column.
Law enforcement subsequently
directed Clayton to a parking lot where the Buick was being held. Clayton, an auto mechanic, noted that the
driver’s side door lock cylinder had been removed from his car. In addition, damage to the steering column
and ignition switch allowed the car to operate without an ignition key.
A jury found defendant guilty of
the owner’s consent (Veh. Code, § 10851), and the trial court found
true enhancement allegations that defendant had a prior serious felony
conviction (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (c)-(e) and served a prior
prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced defendant to an
aggregate term of five years in state prison.
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends his trial counsel
rendered ineffective assistance by eliciting
cross-examination. Defendant argues that
Clayton’s testimony on cross-examination “went a long way in proving
[defendant] was guilty of the charged crime . . . .†Thus, he contends, he was prejudiced by
counsel’s ineffective assistance. We
disagree.
A criminal defendant has a
v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 684-685 [80 L.Ed.2d 674, 691-692].) This right “entitles the defendant not to
some bare assistance but rather to effective assistance.†(People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171, 215, italics
omitted.) “To establish entitlement to
relief for ineffective assistance of counsel the burden is on the defendant to
show (1) trial counsel failed to act in the manner to be expected of reasonably
competent attorneys acting as diligent advocates and (2) it is reasonably
probable that a more favorable determination would have resulted in the absence
of counsel’s failings. [Citations.]†(
262, 288.)
Here, in response to a question from
defense counsel on cross-examination, Clayton (who had over 30 years of auto
mechanic experience) opined that any person of ordinary strength could have
“punched†out the lock on the driver’s side door of the Buick. In response to further questioning from
defense counsel, Clayton explained the damage to the Buick’s steering
column: “When you break open the side of
the column to gain access to the actuator rod to activate the ignition switch
and start the car, there’s also another piece that gets broken loose, and when
that gets broken loose, that releases the little plunger that locks the
steering wheel. [¶] . . . [¶]
There’s a little round plate inside the steering column below the steering
wheel, and you cannot see it, and it has notches cut in it; okay?
“And there’s a little plunger that
when you turn the key off and take it out, that plunger rises up, and it goes
into one of those notches, and it keeps the steering wheel locked so you cannot
turn it.
“And when the steering column is
broken open to enable the car to be started, not only do they break open the
steering column, but they also unhook a little piece of linkage that goes from
that actuator rod over to the little doohickey, the plunger that locks the
plate so you can’t turn the steering wheel.
“So by breaking open the steering
column, it gives them the ability to start the car and unlock the steering
wheel, and it also unlocks the shifter itself because the shifter is normally
locked also.â€
Defense counsel asked Clayton why
someone would go to the trouble of disconnecting the actuator rod. Clayton said “[t]he reason it is done that
way as was done in my car is because it is faster and easier.â€
Defendant contends Clayton’s testimony
“went a long way in proving [defendant] was guilty of the charged crime because
it established [defendant] was a sophisticated and experienced car thief who
stole Clayton’s Buick.†Defendant also
contends the testimony elicited by defense counsel “supported the impermissible
inference that [defendant] was criminally disposed to committing the charged
crime . . . [,] negated [defendant’s] challenge to the credibility of
the prosecution’s case . . . [, and] had a tendency to cause the jury
to condemn [defendant], not because he was believed to be guilty of the charged
crimes but because he had likely escaped punishment for other offenses.â€
Defendant fails to establish
prejudice, however, because the evidence of defendant’s guilt was
overwhelming. He was found driving the
Buick, which was obviously stolen based on the damage to the car; he attempted
to evade law enforcement after they saw him driving the stolen Buick; he had
the vehicle registration papers on his person, along with the key Clayton had locked
inside the car; and Clayton never gave defendant permission to drive the
car. Accordingly, defendant does not
“demonstrate a reasonable probability that the result would have been more
favorable to him in the absence of any alleged ineffectiveness.†(People
v. Hart (1999) 20 Cal.4th 546, 632.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
MAURO , J.
We concur:
BLEASE , Acting P. J.
BUTZ , J.
