P. v. Maddox

Filed 1/13/10 P. v. Maddox CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, John Conley, Judge. Affirmed.

Nancy Olsen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Gil Gonzalez and Lynne G. McGinnis, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A jury convicted Taron Donnell Maddox of attempted murder and assault with a firearm. It also found true allegations that, in committing those offenses, he acted for the benefit of a criminal street gang and vicariously discharged a firearm. Maddox contends there is insufficient evidence to support the jurys verdict, but we disagree and affirm the judgment.

FACTS

Maddox is not your typical gang member. At the time this case arose, he was a 19-year-old postal worker who lived with his family in Fontana and had saved enough money to buy a new Cadillac. Most weekends he visited his cousin and her sons in Long Beach, playing sports and video games with the boys. He had no criminal record and enjoyed a reputation for honesty, hard work and peacefulness. But he also ran with a bad crowd. Many of his friends were members of the Naughty n Nasty Crips (2N), an African-American gang in Long Beach. One day, Maddox was in their company when they shot and wounded Miguel Perez. The primary issue at trial was whether Maddox aided and abetted his buddies in carrying out a gang-related shooting, or, as Maddox claimed, he was merely an unwitting witness to their crimes.

According to the prosecutions evidence, the shooting stemmed from an earlier incident involving Perez, an associate of the Hispanic gang Evil Ways, and 14-year-old Jeremiah Webb, the younger brother of 2N member Ezekiel Zeke Webb. Jeremiah had been skateboarding near his Garden Grove apartment with his twin brother Joshua and their friend Addison Ngo. As they played, they noticed Perez and other Hispanic juveniles spraying graffiti near Ngos apartment. Ngo and Jeremiah approached the juveniles and threatened to call the police if they didnt knock it off.

Perez responded by asking Ngo and Jeremiah where they were from, a question often posed by gang members to determine a potential rivals gang affiliation. Jeremiah said he was from Long Beach, and Perez retorted he was from Orange County. Perez then retrieved a knife from his pocket, grabbed Jeremiahs skateboard, and pushed him into the bushes. The incident ended by Perez throwing the skateboard to the ground and Jeremiah fleeing to his nearby apartment with Joshua and Ngo. However, that wasnt the end of things. At the apartment, Joshua said he wanted to get Perez for what he did to Jeremiah. Joshua then spoke with Zeke on the phone and told him what had happened. During their conversation, he asked for Zekes help in dealing with Perez.

Twenty minutes later, Zeke and Maddox arrived at the apartment, along with 2N members Keith Mason, Herbert Percy and Davion Hughes. Maddox had driven the group from Long Beach in his Cadillac. When they exited his car, Zeke was visibly angry and demanded to know Perezs whereabouts. Jeremiah pointed down the street to where Perez and his friends were standing. Maddox then drove Zeke, Mason, Percy and Hughes to that location. They were followed on foot by a small crowd of onlookers that included Jeremiah and Joshua.

Maddox pulled up near Perezs group, parked his car and joined his companions in confronting Perez. Zeke asked Perez if he had a problem, and a friend of Perez known as Silent belied his nickname by telling Zeke not to make a scene. Zeke said, Somebody messes with my brother its my business. He also warned Perez to take his hand out of his pocket. When Perez refused, Zeke turned to his pals and said get off on him already. At that point, Maddox pulled out a handgun and handed it to Mason, who promptly shot Perez. Mason tried to fire the gun again, but it jammed and he was unable to do so. He and his buddies then piled back into Maddoxs car, and Maddox drove them back to Long Beach.

According to the prosecutions gang expert Chris Zamora, it is highly unlikely gang members would ever allow a nongang member to accompany them in carrying out such a shooting. While acknowledging Maddox had no criminal record and was not a documented gang member, Zamora said it is important for the driver in a group to be aware of any potential criminal activity that may occur, so that he can be prepared to depart the scene in a hurry. If the driver is not in the loop, he could easily leave some of the participants behind or balk when it came time to leave. The fact that did not happen in this case suggested to Zamora that Maddox was either a strong associate or active member of 2N and that he acted for the benefit of that gang.

In forming these opinions, Zamora also relied on the fact that Maddox had Mason and Percy listed by their gang monikers in his cell phone, and his phone contained a picture of 2N graffiti. In addition, when the police searched Maddoxs car following the shooting, they found a brown bandana of the sort favored by 2N members and a backpack bearing the gangs graffiti. While in jail, Maddox also wrote a letter to a top 2N member that contained a plethora of gang references.

Zamora also pointed out that in the gang culture, fear interpreted as respect is the currency by which gangs increase their standing in the community. Acts showing disrespect toward the gang must be met with an escalation of violence in order for the gang to maintain their respect. And that would include any perceived slights against a gang members younger sibling. Although Zamora was not aware of any particular rivalry between 2N and the victims gang, he said African-American and Hispanic gangs have been feuding in Southern California for decades. He opined that once word got out 2N gang members had shot a Hispanic gang member, the gangs reputation for violence would be enhanced significantly.

Testifying in his own behalf, Maddox did not deny knowing about 2N. However, he insisted he has never been a member of that gang and had no intention of helping its members on the day in question. In fact, he said he had no idea Zeke, Percy and Hughes were even gang members. He said they were just his friends, and he had never seen them sporting gang attire or weapons. He also said the graffiti-laden backpack found in his car belonged to a friend of Percy or Hughes, and he didnt know the significance of the bandana that was found in his glove compartment. As for the letter he wrote to the high-level 2N member while in jail, he claimed it was just an attempt to get protection while he was in custody.

Describing the events leading up to the shooting, Maddox testified he was hanging out with Zeke, Mason, Hughes and Percy at Percys house in Long Beach when Zeke received a phone call from his brother Joshua. After the call, Zeke appeared sad and said Joshua had been jumped, or was about to be jumped, by a rival gang member. Zeke asked Maddox for a ride to Joshuas apartment, and Maddox reluctantly agreed. As they were leaving, Mason, Hughes, and Percy decided to join them.

Along the way, Maddox played the music in his car so loud he couldnt hear any talking that may have been going on. When they arrived at Joshuas apartment building, he parked and got out with the others. But when Zeke walked over to Joshua, he stepped off to the side and could not hear what they were saying. Before long, some kids came up and announced where Perez and his gang were located. Zeke and the others ran to that location, while Maddox got in his car and followed them. He parked his car near the site of the confrontation, but rather than joining in, he stayed in the car, cranked up his stereo and looked away. After a few minutes, his friends came running over to his car, and he drove them back to Long Beach.

Maddox testified that, not only was he ignorant of what his friends had done, he told them he didnt want to know, and they didnt talk about it. Although he suspected something bad had happened, he did not want to be part of it. These claims notwithstanding, the prosecution proceeded on the theory Maddox aided and abetted the shooting by driving and handing the gun to the shooter Mason. Alternatively, the prosecution theorized the charged crimes of attempted murder and aggravated assault were a natural and probable consequence of the targeted offense of disturbing the peace.

The defense argued Maddox was being prosecuted simply because of his association with Zeke and the other gang members. It claimed Maddox was neither aware of, nor involved in their crimes, and therefore he was not criminally responsible for what occurred. The jury convicted Maddox of all the charges and found the gang allegations to be true. The court sentenced him to 30 years to life in prison.

I

Maddoxs contentions are aimed at the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jurys verdict. Particularly, he contends the record falls short in terms of establishing that he aided and abetted the shooting or that he was culpable under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. He also maintains there is insufficient evidence that the shooting benefitted a criminal street gang or that he acted with the specific intent to benefit a gang. We find his arguments unpersuasive.

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction, we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence from which a jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Story (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1282, 1296.) We do not reweigh the evidence or revisit credibility issues, but rather presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact that could reasonably be deduced from the evidence. (People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206.) Unless it is clearly shown that on no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the verdict the conviction will not be reversed. [Citation.] (People v. Quintero (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1162.)

Under this standard of review, there is clearly sufficient evidence to support the jurys determination that Maddox aided and abetted the shooting. A person aids and abets the commission of a crime when he aids, promotes, encourages or instigates the commission of the crime by act or advice, knowing the perpetrator has an unlawful purpose, and intends to commit, facilitate, or encourage the commission of that crime. (People v. Cooper (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1158, 1164.) The aider and abettors presence at the scene of the crime, companionship with the principal, and conduct before and after the offense are among the factors that may be considered in determining whether the defendant had the requisite knowledge and intent. (People v. Campbell (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 402, 409.)

Maddox was not only present at the scene of the shooting, he was there with several other 2N members, and it was he who drove them there. It is clear they were looking to avenge Perezs prior assault against Zekes younger brother. And when Zeke gave the command for his boys to get off on Perez, meaning shoot him, Maddox pulled out a gun and handed it to Mason. Mason then shot Perez once and unsuccessfully attempted to shoot him again. After that, Maddox drove Zeke, Mason and the others back to Long Beach.

Its hard to imagine a clearer case of aiding and abetting than that. While Maddox testified to an entirely different version of events, the jury was not required to believe him. And as stated above, we must review the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment below. Doing so leads to the ineluctable conclusion Maddox aided in the shooting, knowing of Masons unlawful purpose and with the intent to help him accomplish it.

II

There is also sufficient evidence to support Maddoxs convictions under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. Under that doctrine, a person who knowingly aids and abets a criminal act is deemed responsible for not only that offense, i.e., the so-called target offense, but any reasonably foreseeable crime that stems from it. (People v. Mendoza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1114, 1133.) When guilt is based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine, the aider and abettor does not need to have the same intent as the actual perpetrator; he only needs to have knowledge of the perpetrators unlawful purpose and intend to commit, encourage, or facilitate the target offense. (People v. Prettyman (1996) 14 Cal.4th 248, 267.) Once the necessary mental state is established, the aider and abettor is guilty not only of the intended, or target, offense, but also of any other crime the direct perpetrator actually commits that is a natural and probable consequence of the target offense. [Citation.] (People v. Mendoza, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 1123.)

Maddox argues there is insufficient evidence he knew his companions were going to commit the target crime of disturbing the peace or that he intended to help them do so. The argument is premised on the notion that Maddox was not in the 2N gang and that he had no idea what his friends were up to when he took them to the crime scene. But Maddox had 2N paraphernalia in his car and on his cell phone, and his jailhouse letter was laced with gang references. Relying on this evidence, and the circumstances surrounding the shooting, gang expert Zamora testified that Maddox was either a strong associate or active member of 2N. The jury could certainly draw this conclusion based on the evidence that it heard.

Irrespective of Maddoxs gang status, he was well aware that Zeke intended to confront Perez about the earlier incident involving his younger brother. Knowing Zekes intent in this regard, Maddox chose to facilitate his actions by driving Zeke and three other 2N members to Perez and his friends. He then actively joined his companions in confronting Perezs group. Maddox had the gun with him, and on Zekes command to open fire, he handed the weapon to the shooter Mason. These circumstances readily establish Maddox aided and abetted the target offense of disturbing the peace.

It is also clear that a reasonable person in Maddoxs position would have foreseen that confronting a rival gang member about a perceived act of disrespect could easily escalate into violence. The sad truth is, that [w]hen rival gangs clash today, verbal taunting can quickly give way to physical violence and gunfire. (People v. Montes (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1050, 1056; accord, People v. Medina (2009) 46 Cal.4th 913, 925-927 [where verbal challenges occur between rival gang members, physical violence is foreseeable].) And in that combustible context, escalation of [the] confrontation to a deadly level [is] much closer to inevitable than . . . to unforeseeable. (People v. Olguin (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1376.)

Maddox correctly notes there was not any evidence that Perezs gang and 2N were active rivals at the time of the shooting. But there was evidence of a long-standing rivalry between African-American and Hispanic gangs in general. Moreover, it is clear Zeke had a strong motivation to avenge the prior assault by Perez on his younger brother. According to the gang expert, this would likely necessitate an escalation in the violence; hence the decision to bring along the gun. Beside the obvious danger that Maddox created by bringing a gun into such a volatile situation, [t]he fact that at least two of the gang members knew a gun was available at the scene is further evidence that gun violence was foreseeable. (People v. Medina, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 924.)

All told, we are convinced that under the circumstances presented, a reasonable person in Maddoxs position would have known assault with a firearm and attempted murder were natural and probable consequences of the decision to confront Perez. Thus, there is sufficient evidence to support his convictions under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

III

The remaining question is whether there is sufficient evidence to support the jurys findings that Maddoxs crimes were committed to benefit 2N and that he acted with the specific intent to promote that gang. (Pen. Code, 186.22, subds. (b) & (e), 12022.53, subds. (c)(d) & (e)(1).) We believe there is.

Maddox portrays the confrontation between 2N and Perezs group as merely a personal conflict between Zeke and Perez. However, considering all of the circumstances surrounding the encounter, the jury could reasonably find otherwise. After all, Zeke didnt act alone; he was accompanied by Maddox and three other 2N members. The presence of multiple gang members during the crime, while not conclusive in itself, is sufficient to support an inference the shooting was gang related. (People v. Villalobos (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 310, 322.)

Moreover, while there was evidence the gun belonged to Zeke, it was Maddox who brought the weapon to the scene, and it was Mason who fired it. Unlike Zeke, who had an obvious personal incentive to confront and harm Perez, neither Maddox nor Mason had a personal stake in the matter. It could be argued that they were simply helping Zeke seek personal vengeance against Perez. But, friends seldom go to the extremes they did, unless there is a greater motivation involved, such as the desire to promote ones gang.

A gang motive was supplied by the prosecutions expert witness Zamora. He testified an attack on a gang members younger sibling would be construed as an act of disrespect toward the gang itself. If the gang member did not respond to the act with violence, both he and his gang would lose respect. Based on this testimony, the jury could infer Zekes command to shoot Perez was not simply a matter of family pride, but also a matter of saving face for his gang. As Zamora explained, gangs earn respect by committing acts of violence, and shooting a Hispanic gang member in a crowd of people would go a long way in terms of bolstering the street credentials of an African-American gang such as 2N.

Maddox claims Zamoras testimony exceeded the permissible scope of expert testimony, but that is not so. Although an expert may not render an opinion as to what the defendant knew or was thinking on a particular occasion (In re Frank S. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1199; People v. Killebrew (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 644, 658-659), he may testify about the customary habits and general expectations of gang members when they are confronted with a specific situation. (People v. Ward (2005) 36 Cal.4th 186, 209-210; People v. Killebrew, supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at p. 658.) Here, Zamora properly limited his testimony to these topics and did not render any opinions as to the intent or knowledge of any participant in the case. Therefore, his testimony was properly admitted, and we may consider it for purposes of assessing Maddoxs claims.

Suffice it to say, when we consider Zamoras testimony in light of the facts surrounding the shooting, there is ample evidence to support the jurys findings on the gang allegations. Maddox made the conscious choice to aid and abet the shooting when he handed the gun to Mason, whom he knew to be a 2N member. And such intentional acts, combined with the knowledge they will assist crimes by gang members, constitutes substantial evidence of the necessary specific intent to support a gang enhancement. (People v. Villalobos, supra, 145 Cal.App.4th at p. 322.) We therefore find no reason to disturb the jurys findings on the gang allegations.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

BEDSWORTH, J.

WE CONCUR:

SILLS, P. J.

FYBEL, J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com