P.
v. Robledo
Filed
2/26/13 P. v. Robledo
CA2/3
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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
THREE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
Manuel Robledo,
Defendant and Appellant.
B243547
(Los
Angeles County
Super. Ct.
No. VA118863)
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Roger Ito, Judge.
Modified with directions, as so modified, affirmed.
Michael W.
Flynn, under appointment by the
Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant
and appellant Manuel Robledo appeals from the judgment entered following
revocation of probation previously granted following his plea of guilty to
grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)).
court sentenced Robledo to three years in county jail. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. Facts –
the probation violation.
a. The
prosecution’s case.
At
approximately 12:10 a.m. on May 10, 2012, Los Angeles County
Deputy Sheriff David Avila and his partner were on patrol in the area of Myrtle
and Whittier Boulevards. At the
intersection of Edna and Myrtle, the deputy observed Robledo, accompanied by
two passengers, driving a 2001 Chevrolet Tahoe at approximately 45 miles
per hour in a 25-mile-per-hour zone. In
addition, the vehicle’s headlights were not on and Robledo failed to stop at a
stop sign. Believing that Robledo was
driving recklessly in violation of Vehicle
Code section 23103, the deputy pulled up until his patrol car was
approximately one or two car lengths behind Robledo, then turned on his
overhead red lights to conduct a traffic stop.
Robledo pulled to the right side of
the street and stopped. As he did so,
the passenger riding in the backseat of the car, Rudy Garcia, got out and ran
west on Whittier Boulevard. He was holding in his right hand a small,
black, semi-automatic firearm.
Avila
and his partner approached Robledo’s vehicle with their guns drawn. Once back-up units arrived “to help contain
the area†and find Garcia, the deputies had Robledo and the front seat
passenger, Jonathan Loaza, get out of the car.
Robledo had been cooperative. When
Avila had turned on his overhead
lights, Robledo pulled over
immediately. When the deputies then
ordered him to place his hands where they could be seen, he had done so. He made no “furtive movements.â€
Avila
was familiar with Robledo and knew that he was a member of the Pico Viejo Gang.
was considered “a Jardin Gang area.†Avila
knew that the two gangs were frequently “at war†with one another.
Approximately
30 minutes after the traffic stop, Garcia was located in the backyard of a
nearby residence. When deputies ordered
him to come out, he did so and surrendered.
However, no gun was ever recovered.
Los Angeles
County Sheriff’s Detective Hank Ortega was also familiar with Robledo. The detective had been “working†the Pico
Rivera area since 2005 and, during that time, had had several
contacts with Robledo, an admitted gang member whose moniker is “ ‘Sick One.’
†Ortega was also familiar with Rudy
Garcia, who is also an admitted Pico Viejo Gang member whose moniker is “
‘Rowdy.’ â€
Ortega knew
the area surrounding the intersection of Edna and Myrtle and believed that the
territory belonged, not to the Pico Viejo Gang, but to its rival, the Jardin
Gang. If the detective were told that
“Pico Viejo gang members were driving in a vehicle with their lights out in the
area of Edna and Myrtle [at 12:10 in
the morning] and one of them had a handgun,†it would cause the detective “some
concern.†Because the Pico Viejo Gang
members would have been in the “heart of a rival [gang’s] territory,†the
detective would assume they were “out looking for trouble.â€
b. Defense
evidence.
Robledo
testified that, at approximately midnight
on May 10, 2012, he was
taking his cousin, Rudy Garcia, “to a girl’s house in Montebello.†Robledo was driving his brother’s car, a
2001 Chevrolet Tahoe. The lights on the
car are “ ‘automatic.’ †In
other words, when it begins to get dark, the lights automatically go on.
When he was driving down Myrtle
Boulevard, Robledo was traveling at between 20 and
26 miles per hour. He is familiar with
the street because he lives in Montebello
and frequently uses it as a shortcut.
When he was stopped by deputy sheriffs on May 10, 2012, Robledo and his two cousins were
coming from Robledo’s mother’s home in Pico Rivera
and he was approximately a mile from his home in Montebello. Robledo stated that neither he nor either one
of his two cousins had been in possession of a gun that night. There had been no gun in his vehicle.
When he was
pulled over by the deputy sheriffs, Robledo’s cousin, Rudy, “bail[ed] out of
the car†because he was on probation.
Since Robledo is an admitted member of the Pico Viejo Gang and Rudy was
a gang member, “it was a violation†of the terms of his probation for Rudy to
be with Robledo.
Robledo admitted that, although he
did not believe the two gangs were “ ‘at war,’ †he knew he had been
driving through a rival gang’s territory on the night he was stopped.
2. Procedural
history; the trial court’s ruling.
After
considering the evidence, the trial court stated: “Well, [based on] the fact pattern presented
to me, Mr. Robledo is picking up his cousin at his mother’s house in an area
that is very different . . . [from the area] where the stop takes place. I articulated for the record I believe the
sequence of the streets [and] there are several main thoroughfares
. . . that would have been preferable to driv[ing] through . . .
rival gang territory. [¶] And when you compound that by the fact the
vehicle[’]s lights [were] not on and an individual riding in the backseat,
whether [it was] his cousin [or not], [was] a member of the same P.V. gang and
[was] seen running out of the vehicle with [a] firearm, I’d say by [a]
preponderance of the evidence Mr. Robledo [was] in violation of [the] terms and conditions of [his]
probation, which [included that he] obey all laws, rules [and] orders of the
court . . . . I am
going to find him in violation of his . . . probation.â€
The trial court noted that Robledo had suffered prior
convictions involving “firearms in vehicles.â€
The court continued, “This is not a low-term case to
me . . . . I’m
disinclined to put him back on probation.
There’s been no great acts of violence surrounding Mr. Robledo, but as far
as . . . I can see, it’s only a matter of time.†Based on his “criminal history†and his “poor
performance†on probation and parole, the trial court sentenced Robledo to the
“high term of three years†in county jail.
(See § 1170, subd. (h).)
The court then ordered Robledo to pay $240 to the victim restitution
fund (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $240 probation revocation fine
(§ 1202.44), a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1))
and a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373).
custody credit for 180 days which he had served in Orange
County, 22 days actually served in Los
Angeles and 22 days of good time/work time, for a
total of 224 days.
Robledo
filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgment on August 22, 2012.
CONTENTIONS
After
examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief which raised no
issues and requested this court to conduct an independent review of the
record. By notice filed December 11, 2012, the clerk of this
court advised Robledo to submit within 30 days any contentions, grounds of
appeal or arguments he wished this court to consider. No response has been received to date.
REVIEW ON APPEAL
We have
examined the entire record and are satisfied counsel has complied fully with
counsel’s responsibilities. (
278-284; People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436, 443.)
DISPOSITION
The trial court is directed
to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect a section 1202.44 fine of $240
and to delete the $36 fine imposed pursuant to section 1202.5, then to send a
corrected copy of the abstract of judgment to the Department of
Corrections. In all other respects, the
judgment is affirmed.
KLEIN,
P. J.
We concur:
KITCHING,
J.
ALDRICH,
J.
further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
Avila believed that Robledo and his two passengers were
related in that they were all Pico Viejo Gang members, it was later determined
that the three men were also cousins.
