P. v. Vasquez
Filed 8/3/12 P. v. Vasquez CA2/4
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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.
ALEJANDRO VASQUEZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
B234397
(Los
Angeles County
Super. Ct.
No. KA093310)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior
Court of
County, Bruce F. Marrs, Judge. Affirmed.
Sunnie L. Daniels, under appointment
by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
_____________________________
Alejandro Vasquez was
convicted by jury verdict of assault with
a deadly weapon and two counts of making
Our independent review of the record reveals no arguable issue that
would aid Vasquez. We affirm the judgment of conviction.
FACTUAL AND
PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
Appellant is an active member of the
Wicked Insane Diablos (also referred to as “Dub I.D.”
, a RowlandHeights gang. On a Sunday
evening, November 14, 2010,
Marcelo Pantoja was visiting with his neighbor on the front lawn of his house
in Rowland Heights.
They heard a loud commotion in the street. Mr. Pantoja went toward the street to see
what was happening. He saw a group of
eight to ten men and two women walking in the street, yelling and being
unruly. Some of the men had shaved heads
and wore baggy pants and white t-shirts.
Mr. Pantoja later identified appellant as part of the group. Members of the group, including appellant,
yelled, “Wicked Insane Diablos.” They
also said, “This is our bar[r]io” and
asked what Mr. Pantoja was looking at, or doing there. He responded by telling the group to get out
of the area and said, “We don’t play that shit here.” At that point, some of the group sat down in
the street. A man other than appellant
approached Mr. Pantoja and repeated that this was his barrio, that this was Dub
I.D. Mr. Pantoja challenged the man, saying
it was his neighborhood, his block, and that they did not “play that gang
shit.” His wife, Henrietta Pantoja,
called 911.
During this verbal confrontation,
appellant was dancing around, throwing gang signs, yelling that this was their
barrio and “this is how we roll.” The
other man punched Mr. Pantoja, and Mr. Pantoja fought back. Mr. Pantoja fell to the street while
fighting, and was kicked and hit by other members of the group. Appellant came at Mr. Pantoja as if he was
going to hit him. Mr. Pantoja grabbed
appellant and got him to the ground, where they exchanged blows. The first man, then appellant, got away from
Mr. Pantoja. While still receiving blows
from others, Mr. Pantoja tried to stand.
He was hit on the side of the head by a large rum bottle. Then the members of the group walked
away.
In the meantime, Mrs. Pantoja came
out from the garage to see what was happening.
The two women members of the group assaulted her. She was hit in the face by one of them. As they were leaving, appellant said “You
know what, we’re gonna be back . . . .
We’re gonna kill you. We’re gonna
bring back our whole gang.” Mr. Pantoja
sustained cuts, scrapes, a black eye, a cut over his eye, and problems with
flashing lights in his eye. Appellant,
another man, and two females were apprehended a short time later by responding
officers, about two blocks from the Pantoja home. The Pantojas identified appellant at a field
identification as one of the men involved in the assault.
Appellant was arrested. At booking, the officer noticed what appeared
to be blood on appellant’s white shoes, but they were not tested for
blood. Appellant was charged with
assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)),
(§ 422). As to each offense, it was
alleged that it was committed for the benefit of a
intent to promote and further the criminal conduct of gang members (§ 186.22,
subd.(b)(1)(B).)
A plea offer by the prosecution was
rejected by appellant before trial. Mr.
and Mrs. Pantoja, their neighbor, and a responding officer testified. Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff Robert
MacKenzie testified as an expert on the Wicked Insane Diablos. He had seven prior contacts with appellant,
who identified himself to Deputy MacKenzie as a member of the Wicked Insane
Diablos with the moniker “Raskal.”
Deputy MacKenzie testified that one member of the gang had a prior
conviction for felony vandalism for repeatedly vandalizing places in Rowland
Heights with the gang’s name. He also
testified that two other members of the gang had been convicted of assaulting
two people whom they mistakenly believed to be members of a rival gang. According to Deputy MacKenzie, these crimes
were committed for the benefit of the Wicked Insane Diablos. Appellant did not offer a defense.
Appellant was convicted as charged
and the gang special allegations were found true. Probation was denied. Appellant was sentenced to the upper term of
four years on the assault with a deadly weapon count, plus five years for the
gang enhancement. A consecutive term of
one-third the midterm of 24 months (eight months) was imposed on count two and
the gang enhancement was stayed. The
sentence on count 3 was two years, and that sentence and the gang enhancement
were stayed. Appellant was ordered to
pay a $1,800 fine (§ 1202.4, subd.(b)), a $120 court security fee (§ 1465.8,
subd. (a)(1)), and a $90 criminal conviction assessment fee (Gov. Code, §
70373). A $1,800 parole restitution fine
(§ 1202.45) was imposed and stayed, with the stay to become permanent upon
successful completion of parole.
Appellant was ordered to register as a gang member (§ 186.30). He received 214 total days of custody credit
(107 days of actual custody and 107 days of conduct credit). The court reserved jurisdiction to determine
the amount of victim restitution.
Appellant filed a timely appeal.
DISCUSSION
We appointed
appeal. Appointed counsel filed an
appellate brief raising no issues, but asking this court to independently
review the record on appeal pursuant to People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441–442.
We advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to submit by brief
or letter any contentions or arguments he wished this court to consider. No response has been received.
We have independently reviewed the
record in accordance with People v. Wende,
supra, 25 Cal.3d at pages 441–442,
and find no arguable issues that
could aid appellant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
EPSTEIN,
P. J.
We concur:
WILLHITE, J. SUZUKAWA,
J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1]
references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated.
