P. v. Vigil







Filed 11/19/10 P. v. Vigil CA2/1





NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ENRIQUE FRANK VIGIL, Defendant and Appellant.

B222753 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA315032)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Curtis B. Rappe, Judge. Affirmed.
Alan Stern, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

——————————



FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On the afternoon of September 13, 2006, a man wearing a blue jacket and blue t-shirt, whom the cashier was never able to identify, asked a cashier at the H and H Market in Los Angeles for change. When the cashier gave it to him, the man pulled out a gun and demanded the money from the register; the cashier handed over about $200. The man left. Soon thereafter, the cashier heard two shots fired.
On the evening of September 21, 2006, a cashier at Verdugo Ranch Market was approached by a man the cashier later identified (in a live lineup and at trial) as appellant Enrique Frank Vigil. Vigil, whom the cashier described as a 45 year-old Hispanic man, wearing a gray shirt and blue pants, asked the cashier for change for a dollar. As the cashier opened the register, Vigil pointed a gun at her head, took $600 to $700 from the register, and ran off. As he ran from the store, Vigil ran into an obstruction, and dropped $100 to $200 of the stolen funds. A co-worker at the market, who was present during the robbery and also identified Vigil in a photographic six-pack, at the preliminary hearing and at trial (but not in a live lineup), described Vigil as having a moustache and no teeth “on top,” and wearing a baseball cap. Vigil pointed a semi-automatic pistol at this co-worker, who heard a shot and smelled gunpowder.
On the evening of October 8, 2006, a worker at a Jack-in-the-Box in Los Angeles was robbed by a man accompanied by a boy. The man ordered food and after the register was opened, pointed a revolver at the cashier, leaned over the counter and took the money. The restaurant cashier was unable to identify the robber, whom he described as an older Hispanic man in his late 30’s, with some facial hair, who had worn a blue baseball cap and a blue jacket. The cashier told police the man also had a gray metal piece that protruded from his mouth, and the boy who accompanied him appeared to have been about 10 years old.
On the evening of October 24, 2006, a man whom the cashier later identified as Vigil, came into a bakery and pretended to buy some pastries. As the cashier turned around to give Vigil his change from the purchase, Vigil came behind the counter and placed a gun at the side of the cashier’s head, asked him for the money, took $300 to $400 from the register and left the store. The cashier described Vigil as someone who looked like an old veteran gangster, with a snaggle tooth and some missing teeth, and said he had worn a long shirt and a cap, possibly black.
On the evening of November 1, 2006, the cashier at El Rancho Market was robbed. The robber bought some gum and when the cashier opened the cash register the man stuck his hand in. The cashier struggled with the robber, who put his hand into his clothing. That scared the cashier, who retreated to the back of the store where she stayed until a friend came for her. The cashier did not see the robber leave, did not get a good look at his clothing and was not able to identify him. The cashier was shown a surveillance video from the date of the robbery and acknowledged that it accurately depicted her inside the store and the events that transpired there.
In a police interview after his arrest, after being advised of his Miranda rights, Vigil admitted having committed all the robberies, except the one at the El Rancho Market. He knew where that market was and claimed to have robbed five stores in the past three or four months, but did not recall having robbed the El Rancho Market.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
An information charged appellant Enrique F. Vigil with five counts of second degree robbery, for this series of robberies of the markets, fast food restaurant and bakery between September 13 and November 1, 2006. (Pen. Code, § 211.^[1]) All five counts were alleged to be both serious and violent offenses. (§§ 1192.7, subd. (c), 667.5, subd. (c).) As to the first two counts, the information alleged Vigil personally and intentionally discharged and used a handgun. (§ 12022.53, subds. (c), (b).) As to all counts, the information alleged Vigil had two prior “strikes” within the meaning of the Three Strikes law, two prior serious felony convictions, and two prison priors. (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d), 667, subds. (b)–(i), 667, subd. (a)(1), 667.5, subd. (b).) Vigil pleaded not guilty, and denied the special allegations. Vigil filed two unsuccessful Pitchess [v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531] motions. The prosecution adduced evidence proving all counts and the enhancement allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.
On March 10, 2009, a jury found Vigil guilty on all five counts, and found true the gun allegations as to counts 1 and 2. After denying Vigil’s Marsden motion as both meritless and untimely, the trial court accepted the parties’ stipulation that 14 identified priors belonged to Vigil, and found true the prior allegations contained in the information.
On January 22, 2010, the trial court sentenced Vigil to an aggregate term of 170 years to life, derived as follows: count 1, an aggregate term of 50 years to life (25 years to life, plus an additional 20 years for discharge of a handgun, plus five years for a prior serious felony); count 2 an aggregate term of 45 years to life (25 years to life, plus an additional 20 years for discharge of a handgun),^[2] consecutive to the sentence imposed on count 1; counts 3, 4 and 5, three additional consecutive 25 years-to-life terms. Vigil was given 1216 days of presentence custody credits.
We appointed counsel to represent Vigil on appeal. After examination of the record, Vigil’s counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues, and asking this court to independently review the record. On July 7, 2010, we advised Vigil he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. To date, we have received no response.
We have examined the record and are satisfied that Vigil’s counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities, and no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

JOHNSON, J.

We concur:

MALLANO, P. J.

CHANEY, J.

Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

---