P. v. Enriquez
Filed 7/12/13 P. v. Enriquez CA2/8
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
EIGHT
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JESSE ENRIQUEZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
B242980
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. KA095961)
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court
of
County.
Juan Carlos Dominguez, Judge. Affirmed.
Linn Davis,
under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
________________________
Defendant
Jesse Enriquez was charged by amended information with assault with a deadly
weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2); count 1), and with being a felon in
possession of a firearm (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1); count 5). The information also included gang and two
prior strike allegations (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A) & (B), § 667,
subd. (a)(1), 667.5, subd. (b)).
counts and found all special allegations to be true. The trial court denied defendant’s
Defendant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 64 years to life,
consisting of 25 years to life for count 1, plus a determinate term of
5 years under section 667, subdivision (a)(1), and 5 years under
section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(B).
He received a consecutive term of 25 years to life on count 5, plus an
additional four-year term under section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(A).
Defendant
appeals his conviction. We appointed
appellate counsel to represent him.
Appointed counsel filed a brief in which no issues were raised. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436
(Wende).) The brief included a declaration from counsel
that counsel reviewed the record and advised defendant of his right, under
brief. Defendant did not file a
The facts are these: On the morning of October 29, 2011, D.A., who was confined to a
wheelchair, was retrieving something from the trunk of his Volvo. The Volvo was parked in front of his wife’s
grandmother’s home on Carlton Avenue
in Pomona. A group of eight or nine young
African-American men were gathered across the street. D.A. heard one of the young men say
something, and when he looked up, they were all running. D.A. saw a car driving down the street. A gun was sticking out the driver’s side
passenger window. The car stopped and two
“Mexican†men got out. One of them
started shooting towards the group of African-American men. Bullets hit D.A.’s truck, which was parked in
front of his Volvo. D.A. was unable to
identify defendant in court.
On the day of the shooting, L.B.
was at her boyfriend H.P.’s parents’ house on Carlton
Avenue. As
L.B. and H.P. were leaving in L.B.’s car, “a Ford Focus came driving by really
fast.†The Focus was driven by a “Latinaâ€
female, and had three or four male passengers.
L.B. pulled onto Carlton Avenue
behind the Focus and noticed a group of African-American males, and a man in a
wheelchair. The Focus parked and
suddenly, a man ran into the middle of the street with a gun. When L.B. heard gunshots, she put her car
into reverse and drove back to H.P.’s parents’ house. H.P. dragged her into the house. The group of African-American men scattered;
one of them followed L.B. and H.P. into the house. L.B. did not see the shooter’s face. He was wearing a large brown hooded
sweatshirt. He looked “Latino.†She could not identify defendant as the
shooter.
M.D. had been sitting in his car on
Carlton Avenue. Some African-American 357 Crip gang
members were hanging out in front of his neighbor’s house. M.D. saw them scatter and then noticed a car
driving by. The driver’s side passenger
was holding something resembling a gun out the window. After the car passed by, M.D. heard
gunshots.
Defendant’s girlfriend, Rosemary
Perez, testified she was a codefendant in this case and had been identified by
a witness during the preliminary hearing.
She thereafter gave a proffered statement to the district attorney. Before the interview, she was not offered
immunity or leniency in her case. She
understood if she was not truthful, she could be charged with perjury or
obstruction.
The morning of the shooting, after
Perez and defendant spent the night together at Perez’s house, they decided to
get breakfast before Perez went to work.
As Perez was driving, they saw a friend of defendant’s walking down the
street. Perez had seen him before at
family gatherings. She knew him as
“Primo†or “Chase.†Defendant got out of
the car to talk to Chase and asked Perez to give Chase a ride. Defendant let Chase sit in the front seat
because the backseat was full of defendant’s personal belongings. Defendant sat behind Perez. Defendant told Perez where to drive, and then
Chase and defendant began to argue in Spanish.
Perez did not understand what they were arguing about and was confused
about where to drive.
She drove around for awhile, and
then threatened to drop defendant and Chase off where she had picked up Chase
because she was in a hurry to get to work.
Perez was driving fast. Chase
told her to slow down because “he was heated.â€
Perez understood this to mean either that he had a gun, or that he was
mad. Chase then gave Perez directions,
but defendant gave conflicting directions.
Perez decided to follow defendant’s directions. As she turned, she saw a group of
African-American males on the side of the road.
Defendant and Chase continued to argue, and then Perez heard
gunshots. Perez saw a black gun
outstretched from the backseat of her car, where defendant was sitting. She heard Chase say, “Where [are you]
from?â€
Chase told Perez several times to
stop the car. She stopped after Chase
pulled out a gun. Both Chase and
defendant got out of the car, and Perez heard gunshots. Perez ducked and then saw defendant running
back to her car. She did not see a gun
in his hands. She saw a silver gun in
Chase’s hand. Perez heard Chase say,
“Happy Town.†After defendant and Chase
got back into the car, they argued again in Spanish. She asked what had happened, but neither
Chase nor defendant answered her. Perez
drove to the other side of town, and dropped off defendant and Chase. Perez did not go to the police because she
was scared.
Defendant called Perez later that
day, and they went to the beach around 9:00 p.m. She asked defendant what happened. He said there had been a shooting, and
“everything was gonna be okay.†After
the beach, Perez and defendant drove to a friend’s house (the Cesenas), and
then to Perez’s house. As Perez was
inside changing her clothes to attend a Halloween party, defendant came to her
bedroom window and handed her a gun. She
put it in a shoe box in her closet, and they left for the party.
Perez had seen defendant with a gun
before. She believed he got it from a
member of the Cesenas family. Perez
identified Chase in court. His name was
Victor Gomez.
The day after the shooting, as
Perez was leaving the Cesenas’s house, she was pulled over by police. When she was initially questioned, she denied
she was present at the shooting.
However, after police told her she had been identified, she admitted to
being the driver. She did not identify
defendant because she was scared. She
identified Chase because she felt he was the one responsible for the
incident.
When Perez’s mother visited her in
jail, Perez asked her to get rid of defendant’s gun. She told her mother to contact the Cesenas
family, which was Perez’s only way of contacting defendant. When Detective Jerry Uribe later confronted Perez
about her conversation with her mother, Perez admitted defendant was involved
in the shooting.
On
entered into a plea agreement for probation and a suspended prison sentence in
this case. At the time of her testimony,
she had not been sentenced. She was told
if she did not testify truthfully, she would be prosecuted and the deal was
off.
A.R., Perez’s cousin, testified
defendant called her and arranged to meet with her in person. Defendant told her Perez had been
arrested. He asked A.R. to retrieve a
gun from Perez’s house, and A.R. agreed to do so.
up A.R. to drive her to Perez’s house to recover the gun. A.R. agreed to help defendant because she
knew children lived in Perez’s home, and she was scared they would get
hurt. Defendant told A.R. the gun was
hidden under Perez’s mattress, and she found it there. A.R. concealed the gun in her jacket and
threw the gun into the car’s backseat.
Defendant and the others then drove A.R. home.
Detective Uribe investigated the
shooting. He participated in defendant’s
interview after his arrest. Defendant
admitted to being present at the shooting.
He denied he was the shooter, or that he knew the shooting was going to
occur. Defendant was in the car with his
girlfriend, Perez, and “Chase.†Chase
told Perez to stop the car. Once the car
stopped, defendant heard a bunch of gunshots.
He also got out of the car, but ducked down. When Detective Uribe asked defendant why he
got out of the car, he said he did not know why.
Defendant admitted he had given a
gun to Perez to hold for him, but he denied it was the gun used in the
shooting. As for the gun used in the
shooting, defendant admitted to knowing where it was, but refused to tell
Detective Uribe its location. Defendant
admitted to telling his girlfriend’s cousin to dispose of his gun, as he knew a
search of his girlfriend’s house was imminent following her arrest. Defendant also admitted to being a gang
member. A video of the interview was
played for the jury.
Detective
Eric Berger testified as a gang expert.
He testified about the Happy Town gang, and that members of the Cesenas
family are “deep rooted within the Happy Town gang.†Defendant is a Happy Town gang member with
the moniker “Bams.†Victor Gomez, or
Chase, is a Happy Town member with the moniker “Sniper.â€
Happy Town and the 357 Crips are
rival gangs. The shooting took place in
357 Crips territory. There had been
several skirmishes between the two gangs leading up to the shooting. Based on a hypothetical tracking the facts of
this case, Detective Berger opined the shooting was for the benefit of the
Happy Town gang.
We have examined
the entire record, consisting of two volumes of clerk’s transcript, two volumes
of reporter’s transcript, and a sealed Marsden
transcript, and are satisfied that appointed counsel fully complied with
counsel’s responsibilities and that no arguable appellate issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th
106; Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d 436.) We therefore affirm the
judgment.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
GRIMES,
J.
WE CONCUR:
BIGELOW,
P. J.
FLIER,
J.
girlfriend, Rosemary Perez, was charged with being an accessory after the fact
(Pen. Code, § 32; count 3). She entered
a plea under a grant of immunity.
name="_ftn2" title="">[2] People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.
