P. v. Ruiz
Filed 2/7/12 P. v. Ruiz CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ALVARO RUIZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
B232944
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No.
KA092929)
APPEAL from a judgment of
the Superior Court of
County, Bruce Marrs, Judge.
Affirmed.
Joshua L. Siegel, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance
for Respondent.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On
April 7, 2011, an amended information was filed, charging appellant Alvaro
Ruiz in count 1 with the robbery of
William Carrillo (Pen. Code, § 211), and in count 2 with possession of
methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a). In connection with count 1, the information
alleged that appellant personally used a firearm in the offense (Pen. Code, §
12022.53, subd. (b)), and that the offense had been committed in association
with, and for the benefit of a criminal
street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)). The information also alleged that appellant
had suffered a prior conviction (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). Appellant pleaded not guilty and denied the
special allegations. At appellant’s
request, the trial court bifurcated trial on the prior conviction
allegation.
During
appellant’s jury trial, the prosecution presented evidence establishing the
following facts: At approximately 11:00 p.m. on December
30, 2010,
when William Carrillo parked his truck, appellant left a nearby car, approached
Carrillo, and said, “I’m Roach from 12th Street.â€
Appellant then asked, “What you got?â€, and pointed to a pistol tucked in
his waistband. Appellant took $135 in
cash from Carrillo and walked back to the car, which departed. After Carrillo made a 911 call and a Pomona
Police Department patrol car arrived, Carrillo drove with the officers in an
effort to find the car containing appellant.
When Carrillo spotted the car, the officers stopped it and showed its
occupants to Carrillo, who remained inside the patrol car. Carrillo identified appellant as the
robber.
When
arrested, appellant had more than $200 in cash and a pouch containing .57 grams
of methamphetamine. During booking,
appellant stated that he had a 12th Street gang tattoo and that his moniker was
“Roach.†According to Pomona Police
Department Officer Michael Lange, a gang expert, the Pomona 12th Street gang engages in violent offenses,
narcotics sales, and other crimes, including witness intimidation. Lange opined that appellant is a member of
the gang; in addition, in response to hypothetical questions, he opined that a
robbery of the type attributed to appellant would be for the benefit of the
gang.
While
in jail, appellant participated in phone calls during which he said that he
would be “good†if Carrillo “d[id]n’t show up in court.â€
Later, a police detective told Carrillo that appellant had phoned other
individuals from jail in an attempt to deter him from testifying. To protect his family, Carrillo did not
appear at appellant’s preliminary hearing.
On
April 15, 2011, a jury found appellant guilty as charged, and found the gun
use and gang allegations to be true.
After the trial court found the prior conviction allegation to be true,
it sentenced appellant to a total term of 26 years and 8 months in prison.
DISCUSSION
After
an examination of the record, appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed an
opening brief raising no issues and requested this court to review the record
independently pursuant to People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. In addition,
counsel advised appellant of his right to submit by supplemental brief any
contentions or argument he wished the court to consider. Appellant has presented no such brief. Our examination of the entire record
establishes that appellant’s counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities
and that no arguable issues exist. (People
v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p.
441.)
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
MANELLA,
J.
We concur:
WILLHITE, Acting P. J.
SUZUKAWA, J.
recordings and transcripts of the phone calls were submitted to the jury.
