Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00118/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00118-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMI HANNA ANTAR,

Petitioner,

v.

MARTIN FRINK, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION RE: 

DENIAL OF HABEAS CORPUS 

PETITION

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Sami Hanna Antar Jones, a state prisoner represented by counsel, has 

filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition” or 

“Pet.”) challenging his July 27, 2015 convictions in San Diego Superior Court case no.

SCS268104 for forty-two counts of first degree burglary, two counts of attempted first 

degree burglary, one count of conspiracy to commit residential burglary, and one count of 

receiving stolen property. (Pet., ECF No. 1 at 1-6.)1 The Court has read and considered 

the Petition, [ECF No. 1], the Answer and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in 

Support of the Answer [ECF No. 11], the Traverse [ECF No. 16], the lodgments and 

 

1 Page numbers for docketed materials cited in this Report and Recommendation refer to those imprinted 

by the court’s electronic case filing system.

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 56
2

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

other documents filed in this case, and the legal arguments presented by both parties. For 

the reasons discussed below, the Court recommends the petition be GRANTED.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This Court gives deference to state court findings of fact and presumes them to be 

correct; Petitioner may rebut the presumption of correctness, but only by clear and 

convincing evidence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1) (West 2006); see also Parle v. Fraley, 

506 U.S. 20, 35-36 (1992) (holding findings of historical fact, including inferences 

properly drawn from these facts, are entitled to statutory presumption of correctness).

This case involves a series of residential burglaries committed by Michael 

Venegas, Ronnie Fults, Ricardo Duron, Paula Aguirre and Jose Montes. Venegas 

appears to have been the ringleader of the group, while Montes and Aguirre acted as 

drivers and lookouts. Fults and Duron, accompanied by Venegas, physically entered the 

homes and stole property. Montes and Aguirre were the first to be arrested and became 

cooperating witnesses. Antar owned and operated a jewelry store in downtown San 

Diego. According to Montes and Aguirre, after almost every burglary Venegas would 

call or text Antar and they would drive downtown to Antar’s store. Venegas would enter 

the building housing Antar’s shop with the stolen property and return with cash. 

Following the arrest of Venegas and Fults, Antar’s shop was searched. Some of the 

stolen property was found at the shop and photos of some of the stolen property were 

found on Antar’s computer. The state appellate recounted the facts of the burglaries as 

follows:

Count 1:

Victim C.C. testified that on August 15, 2012, at about 2:15 p.m., she 

was notified that an alarm had been activated at her home located on 

Sundrop Court in Chula Vista. On inspection, C.C. found that a rock had 

been thrown through a window located on the side of the house; that 

someone had entered the home, ransacked it, and taken various items 

including jewelry; and that a pillowcase was missing from a bedroom 

pillow.

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 56
3

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

On the day of this break-in, a neighbor heard the C.C.’s home alarm 

sound and saw two men sitting in what the neighbor described as a light 

blue, 1960’s Volkswagen Beetle parked across the street from the C.C. 

residence. Shortly thereafter, the neighbor saw a third man come from the 

direction of the C.C. residence holding a “bag of some sort,” quickly get into 

the Beetle, and watched as the car sped off.

Montes testified that the C.C. home was the first one burglarized by 

him, Venegas, and Duron during the conspiracy; that, after they determined 

nobody was home, while he and Duron kept watch he saw Venegas jump a 

fence, then about a minute later, he heard glass breaking and an alarm 

sounding. About two minutes later, he saw Venegas exit the front door 

carrying a pillowcase full of jewelry.

Investigator Holmes testified that the cell phone records for this day 

showed a 15-second call from Antar’s phone to Venegas’s phone at 12:27 

p.m.; that at around 2:09 p.m., there were two calls involving Venegas’s cell 

phone that pinged off a cell tower near the C.C. home; and that later in the 

afternoon, phone records showed multiple calls involving the phones of 

Montes, Venegas, and Aguirre that accessed one or more cell towers “east of 

the [C.C.] house.”

At 5:03 p.m. that same day, phone records showed an outgoing call 

from Venegas’s phone to Antar’s phone “pinging off of a tower near 

downtown” San Diego, where, according to Aguirre (see counts 3, 4, and 5, 

post) and Montes (see count 2, post), Antar’s “store” was located and where 

Venegas, after almost every burglary, would meet Antar and exchange the 

loot for money. Phone records also showed call activity between the phones 

of Venegas and Antar at 5:13 and 5:19 p.m.

On this record, we conclude substantial evidence – as further 

summarized ante – supports Antar’s conviction on count 1 under a 

conspiracy theory of vicarious liability. (See Covarrubias, supra, 1 Cal.5th 

at p. 890; Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 1135.)

Count 2:

Victim G.T. testified that her home located on Diamond Drive in 

Chula Vista was broken into on August 21, 2012; that she left home at about 

1:00 p.m. and returned at about 5:00 or 6:00 p.m.; and that when she arrived 

home, she found clothes from her bedroom drawers scattered on the floor 

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 56
4

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and her jewelry box, which had been full and which included coins she had 

collected, empty. Also missing was $4,500 in cash G.T. intended to use to 

pay for new carpeting. As was the case in the C.C. break-in, G.T. found one 

of her pillowcases missing from a bedroom pillow. Also missing from 

G.T.’s home was a spare key to a Mercedes that she kept hidden in a drawer 

in the hall closet. In her daughter’s room, G.T. found a screen from a 

window had been removed; her daughter's clothes also scattered on the 

floor; and her daughter’s laptop and jewelry missing.

About a month after the break-in, G.T. one day returned home and 

found the sliding door and screen to her home open, as was the door leading 

from the garage to the house. G.T. testified that nothing was missing from 

the house as a result of this second entry; that she had been driving her 

Mercedes during both entries; and that in January 2013, she went to sheriff’s 

station and identified a pair of earrings and a watch that had been taken 

during the initial break-in.

Montes testified that he recalled Aguirre was with him, Venegas, and 

Duron on this day; that it was Aguirre who knocked on the front door of the 

G.T. home; that he parked up the street from the home while he and Aguirre 

watched Venegas and Duron enter a side gate by the house; and that he 

specifically recalled they stole a laptop, multiple pursues, and jewelry from 

this home. After this burglary, they drove to Venegas’s mother’s home, 

where Venegas also lived, to sort through the items. Montes recalled 

Venegas on this day stated that “Sami” (i.e., Antar) was interested in buying 

“MacBook” computers.

When asked how they would get money from the stolen items, Montes 

testified that during the “week and a half” he was participating in the 

burglaries, about four or five times he drove Venegas and Duron, and 

sometimes Aguirre, to a jewelry store in downtown San Diego to meet 

“Sami,” where Venegas alone entered the store with the stolen items and 

returned with cash. Montes further testified that Antar’s jewelry store was 

located inside a brownstone building Montes identified as the “Jewelry [sic] 

Exchange.”

Montes testified that, before they “load[ed] up the car with the stolen 

goods” and drove them downtown to Antar’s store, Venegas called or textmessaged Antar to “alert” him they were on the way. Montes further 

testified Venegas sometimes would spend an hour or more with Antar inside 

the brownstone building. Because Venegas would be gone so long, Montes 

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 56
5

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

stated they sometimes would become “impatient” and would text-message 

and/or call Venegas “asking him what [was] taking so long.” Montes 

specifically recalled driving to the Jewelers Exchange on August 21 – the 

same day as the break-in of the G.T. residence – with a stolen MacBook.

Investigator Holmes testified the phone records for this day showed 

calls at 12:07 and 12:09 p.m. between Venegas’s phone and one of Aguirre’s 

phones. The records also showed myriad phone calls and/or text messages 

beginning at about 2:58 p.m. involving phones affiliated with Montes, 

Aguirre, and Venegas in the general area of the G.T. residence. At 4:28 and 

again at 4:57 p.m., the records showed incoming calls from Antar’s phone to 

Venegas’s phone; and beginning at about 5:25 until at least 6:17 p.m., the 

records showed activity for the phones of Montes, Aguirre, and Venegas in 

the downtown area, near Antar’s store, where Venegas would meet Antar 

and exchange the loot for money while the other members of the conspiracy 

waited in the car. Finally, at about 7:33 p.m., the records showed an 

outgoing call from Venegas’s phone to Antar’s phone.

On this record, we conclude substantial evidence supports Antar’s 

conviction on count 2 under a conspiracy theory. (See Covarrubias, supra, 1 

Cal.5th at p. 890; Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 1135.)

Counts 3, 4, and 5:

These counts all took place on August 27, 2012. A.P. testified in 

connection with count 3 that he resided in a home located on Galdar Place in 

Chula Vista. At about 1:00 p.m. that day, A.P. received a phone call from 

his alarm company notifying him the backdoor and a window at his home 

had been compromised. A.P. testified the home had surveillance cameras 

that allowed him to view the inside, but no equipment to record what he saw. 

According to A.P., the only things taken from the home were “two sport 

jerseys” he kept in the closet.

On the day of this break-in, neighbor J.S. saw a light blue “old 

Volkswagen” pull up on the wrong side of the street and park in front of 

A.P.'s home. J.S. saw a female exit the vehicle and they made eye contact. 

J.S. surmised the female was a cleaning lady and was entering the home to 

clean. However, about 30 minutes later, J.S. noticed the “old Volkswagen” 

was gone. J.S. later identified the female from a photographic lineup, who 

police determined was Aguirre.

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 56
6

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Montes recalled the burglary of the A.P. home. Montes “believe[d]” 

that they also may have stolen a car from the garage of this home.

S.T. [FN 4 omitted] testified that, in connection with count 4, she 

lived on Annadale Way in Chula Vista; that at about 3:00 p.m. that day, she 

returned home and found the door to the garage refrigerator open and “some 

stuff” on the floor; that the screen to the kitchen window had been removed; 

and that when she walked into her bedroom, she saw it had been ransacked 

and there were two large kitchen knives lying on her bed. S.T. immediately 

went outside and called 911. Once outside, S.T. saw her neighbor, who 

lived across the street, also “frantic[ ]” and on the phone.

S.T. testified that on inspection, she found several items missing from 

her home including multiple pieces of jewelry; a laptop computer; cell 

phones; a camera; foreign currency; and headsets. A few weeks after the 

break-in, S.T. went to a sheriff’s station and identified some foreign coins 

and jewelry that had been taken during the break-in. About a year later, S.T.

again went to a sheriff’s station and was able to identify additional items 

taken in the break-in.

Neighbor A.G. testified that, when she went to pick up her mail on 

this day, she saw an older light blue Volkswagen parked nearby. A male 

was sitting in the driver’s seat and a female with long hair was sitting in the 

backseat. A.G. subsequently identified the female in a photographic lineup, 

who police determined was Aguirre.

Forensic evidence technician Michelle Hefty testified that she was 

part of a team of law enforcement that responded to the S.T.’s residence on 

the day of the break-in; that she was able to lift several prints from the 

sliding glass door in the living room; that the prints were lifted both from the 

interior and exterior of the door; and that the prints were then impounded. 

Mary Kay Hunt, a latent print examiner with the Chula Vista Police 

Department, determined two latent prints taken from the door matched the 

right thumb of Aguirre.

Montes recalled burglarizing the S.T. home. Montes further recalled 

Aguirre entered the S.T. residence along with Venegas and Duron.

Aguirre, age 22 at the time of trial, testified that she was charged with 

24 counts of residential burglary, and ultimately pleaded guilty to eight 

counts of aiding and abetting residential burglary; that she was involved in 

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 56
7

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

these burglaries between about July and late-November 2012; that her 

youngest child was fathered by Venegas; and that she agreed to cooperate 

with law enforcement because she was young, had kids, and felt it was the 

“right thing to do.”

Aguirre estimated that during the July/November time period, at least 

four or five days “every week” she participated in residential burglaries. 

Aguirre stated that she became involved in the burglaries because she 

wanted to “hang out” and “be with” Venegas; and that she met Duron 

through Venegas.

With respect to count 4, Aguirre said she had been waiting in 

Montes’s car with Montes while Venegas and Duron went into the home. A 

few minutes later, Venegas called Aguirre and asked her to join them 

because they wanted her to “squeeze in through a [crack] in the sliding glass 

door.” When Aguirre was unable to do so, Venegas went in through the 

kitchen window and then opened the door for Aguirre. Once inside, Aguirre 

saw Venegas looking through drawers for jewelry while Duron went to the 

closet. Aguirre, who was the only one not wearing gloves, helped Venegas 

put items in a backpack, and they left. Although Aguirre returned to 

Montes’s car, Venegas and Duron went across the street and burglarized the 

neighbor’s home (i.e., count 5).

T.M. testified in connection with count 5 that she and her family also 

resided on Annadale Way; that she left the house that morning at about 

10:00 a.m. and returned at about 3:00 p.m.; that when she arrived home, she 

found the front door open and all of their “things . . . thrown across the floor 

– pictures, papers, items”; that a window in the dining room had been 

opened and its screen removed; and that a sliding glass door in the living 

room area also had been opened.

Upstairs, T.M. found her bedroom had been “ripped apart.” Like 

many other victims, T.M. found pillowcases missing from pillows and 

kitchen knives in her bedroom. Specifically, T.M. testified that there were 

about seven “steak” knives lying on her bed; that the bedroom mattresses 

were flipped over; that her bedroom closet was ripped apart; that the drawers 

in two bedrooms were emptied; that a fire safe was opened and its contents, 

including jewelry and coins, were taken; and that items were also taken from 

the garage including expensive military gear used by her husband.

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 56
8

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

A few weeks after the break-in, detectives contacted T.M. about 

property they found in Montes’s Beetle after it was impounded. On 

inspection, T.M. identified two coin sets belonging to her children and a 

watch belonging to her husband. T.M. later learned some coins stolen 

during the break-in were at a pawnshop. T.M. found the coins and 

purchased them because of their sentimental value.

Aguirre recalled the burglary of the T.M. home. She testified that 

Venegas and Duron returned with a “military backpack” and that Venegas 

talked about stealing “military gadgets” such as “night-vision goggles” from 

the home. Immediately after this burglary, Aguirre stated they all went 

“downtown” to the “Jewelers Exchange” so that Venegas could meet “Sam” 

(i.e., Antar).

Like Montes, Aguirre testified that Antar and Venegas had a 

“personal relationship;” that while they were all in the car, Venegas alone 

would use his cell phone to contact “Sam”; that when “Sam” responded, 

they would head downtown after “[a]lmost every single [burglary]” with the 

loot (italics added); and that only Venegas would take the loot inside and 

meet with “Sam” while everyone else remained in the car. Aguirre estimated 

Venegas spent about 30 to 40 minutes, and sometimes an hour, inside with 

Antar, and then returned with money.

Aguirre testified that typically after a burglary, the items stolen would 

be sorted by Venegas either in the car or at his home, where he lived with his 

mother; and that she never burglarized a home alone, but rather Venegas and 

Duron were always present during the burglaries.

Investigator Holmes testified that on this day, phone records showed 

there was an incoming call from Antar’s phone to Venegas’s phone at 9:50 

a.m. and that at 11:07 a.m., there was an outgoing call by one of Aguirre’s

phones that accessed a tower “directly south” of the A.P. residence.

Phone records further showed an outgoing call from Venegas’s phone 

to Montes’s phone at 12:34 p.m.; an outgoing call involving Aguirre’s phone 

that accessed towers “somewhat close” to the S.T. and T.M. residences; and 

an incoming call from Aguirre’s phone to Venegas’s phone at about 1:17 

p.m. At 3:08 p.m., there was a call lasting 30 seconds from Venegas’s 

phone to Antar's phone. That call accessed a tower at the intersection of the 

805 and 54 freeways. At 4:44 p.m. there was an incoming call from Antar’s 

phone to Venegas’s phone; and at 5:29 p.m. there was an outgoing call from 

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 56
9

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Venegas’s phone to Antar’s phone lasting 30 seconds, “followed by an 

incoming call from the Antar phone to the Venegas phone [also] at 5:29 

p.m.” lasting one minute 35 seconds.

On this record, we conclude substantial evidence supports Antar’s

conviction on counts 2, 3, and 4 under a conspiracy theory. (See 

Covarrubias, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 890; Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 

1135.)

Counts 6 and 7:

Counts 6 and 7 both took place on August 28, 2012. T.Mo. testified 

in connection with count 6 that he resided on Rue Michelle in Chula Vista; 

that he left for work at about 8:00 a.m. that morning and when he returned at 

about 3:00 p.m., he found his garage door open and his Mercedes Benz 

missing; that when he entered the residence, he found each room had been 

“ransacked”; that all of his wife’s jewelry and his watches were missing 

from their bedroom; and that also missing from the home were cameras and 

a laptop computer, among many other items.

About a week after the break-in, police found T.Mo.’s car in San 

Ysidro, near the United States and Mexico border. About two months later, 

T.Mo. was asked to attend a property viewing of items recovered by 

detectives. T.Mo. testified he identified his wife’s ring, which had been 

taken during the break-in.

Montes could not recall burglarizing this home. However, neighbor 

R.H. testified he lived near the B.B. home and, on the day of the break-in, he 

saw a light blue VW Beetle parked in front of the house, which he found 

“highly unusual.” Inside the car R.H. saw three Hispanic-looking males. 

R.H.’s wife took down the license plate of the Beetle, which was provided to 

law enforcement.

A day or two after the B.B. burglary, Chula Vista police pulled over 

Montes while he was driving in his Beetle. Police impounded the car 

because Montes was driving on a suspended license. A search of the car 

revealed several watches (only one of which belonged to Montes); a 

Mercedes Benz car key; foreign coins; a laptop; and jewelry found under 

and behind the seat. Police also found a store receipt showing Montes had 

sold some coins.

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 56
10

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Montes was arrested on April 11, 2013, and charged with six 

burglaries. Initially, Montes lied to police about his involvement in the 

burglaries but as noted ante, he later agreed to cooperate with law 

enforcement.

Investigator Holmes testified that on this day, phone records showed 

an outgoing call from Venegas’s phone to Antar’s phone at 10:25 a.m. 

lasting two minutes eight seconds that connected to a cell tower near 

Venegas’s (mother’s) home. The records further showed an incoming call 

from Aguirre’s phone to Venegas’s phone at 4:22 p.m., which accessed a 

cell tower about a mile away from the B.B. residence, and an outgoing call 

from Venegas’s phone to Antar’s phone at 4:50 p.m. lasting for 42 seconds 

that accessed a cell tower about a quarter-mile north of Venegas’s home. At 

5:10 p.m., records for Montes’s phone showed an outgoing call accessed a 

cell tower near the Jewelers Exchange in downtown San Diego, where 

Venegas and his crew would take the loot after a burglary, and when 

Venegas alone would meet with Antar and return with money.

On this record, we conclude substantial evidence, and the inferences 

to be drawn from such evidence, supports Antar’s conviction on counts 6 

and 7 under a conspiracy theory. (See Covarrubias, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 

890; Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 1135.)

Count 8:

E.L. testified that on September 12, 2012, he resided in a home 

located on Santa Maria Court in Chula Vista. At about 3:00 p.m. that day as 

he was leaving in his car, E.L. saw two Hispanic males in front of his home. 

E.L. estimated the males were in their late 20’s. E.L. returned about an hour 

later, at the same time his wife separately arrived home. When E.L.’s wife 

went into the house, she found muddy shoe prints in the dining room area 

and on the stairs, which she initially blamed on E.L. On investigation, E.L. 

saw the blinds on a window in the dining room had been “pushed out,” 

shards of glass were lying on a table, and a “big, solid rock” used to break 

the window was also on the table.

Inside the master bedroom, E.L. found everything was “tossed and 

turned.” E.L. testified that “hundreds of pieces” of his wife’s jewelry they 

kept hidden in one of their dressers was stolen. Also stolen was a jewelry 

box in which E.L. kept watches, bracelets, cufflinks, and “military

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 56
11

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

paraphernalia.” Like many of the other homes burglarized, E.L. found a 

pillowcase missing from a bedroom pillow.

Aguirre was shown some text messages between her, Venegas, and 

Duron dated September 12, 2012. In one message, Aguirre informed 

Venegas and Duron she had just knocked on someone’s door. In response, 

Duron instructed Aguirre, “ ‘[address] knock on that one, too.’ ”

Per Investigator Holmes, phone records showed an outgoing call on 

Venegas’s phone at 3:37 p.m. that accessed a cell tower near the E.L. 

residence on Santa Maria Court.

On this record, we conclude the evidence in connection with count 8, 

when considered in light of all the other evidence, and the inferences to be 

drawn from such evidence, supports Antar’s conviction on count 8. (See 

Covarrubias, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 890; Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 

1135.)

Count 9:

V.A. testified that on September 19, 2012, he resided in a home 

located on Via Hacienda in Chula Vista; that he left his home at about 1:00 

p.m. to pick up his granddaughter from school; that as he was dropping off 

his granddaughter at about 3:30 p.m., his daughter informed him the alarm 

company had called and advised her that V.A.’s house alarm had been 

activated; and that he immediately drove home, opened the front door, and 

saw “glass scattered” everywhere, as if there had been an “explosion.” Like 

many of the other break-ins, V.A. saw a sliding glass door in the family 

room had been shattered with a brick, which was lying on the floor.

In the dining room area, V.A. found desk papers scattered all over the 

floor. Inside the master bedroom, V.A. discovered all of his wife’s jewelry 

had been stolen. Also stolen were watches; a souvenir knife collection; a $2 

bill from Singapore; and his red Acura, which he kept in the front driveway. 

Police recovered the Acura about three days after the break-in. V.A. noted 

the sound system in the car had been damaged, as had one of the seats.

In summer 2013, V.A. went to a sheriff’s station to view various items 

of property recovered by law enforcement. V.A. was able to identify the $2 

bill and one of the knives he kept in his nightstand.

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of

 56
12

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Aguirre was shown a text message dated September 19, 2012, in 

which she wrote Venegas, “‘where are you[?]’” Aguirre testified she 

sometimes would message or call Venegas when he was taking too much 

time inside a home or to warn him about someone coming or something 

being amiss.

Cell phone records showed a call that day from Antar’s phone to 

Venegas’s phone at 11:52 a.m. lasting one minute 34 seconds. At about 

2:37 p.m., phone records showed an outgoing call from one of Aguirre’s 

phones that accessed a cell tower about half a mile from the V.A. residence. 

At 3:21 p.m. there was a call from Antar’s phone to Venegas’s phone lasting 

59 seconds, which accessed a tower about a quarter of a mile from the V.A. 

residence. At 4:47 p.m., Aguirre’s phone received an incoming call that 

accessed a tower near the Jewelers Exchange in downtown San Diego, 

where Venegas and his crew traveled after almost every burglary so that 

Venegas could meet Antar and exchange the loot for money.

On this record, we conclude substantial evidence supports Antar’s 

conviction on count 10 under a conspiracy theory. (See Covarrubias, supra, 

1 Cal.5th at p. 890; Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 1135.)

Count 11:

L.L. testified that she resided in a home located on Tim Street in 

Bonita on October 10, 2012; that she left the residence at about 10:00 a.m. 

and returned a few hours later; that on returning, she found the front door 

open and papers on the stairway; that when she went into the kitchen, she 

found the screen covering the window had been cut; and that when she went 

into the master bedroom, she found “everything [was] scattered.”

On investigation, L.L. testified her jewelry and her husband’s jewelry 

was stolen, as was the “pink slip” and a car key to her Mercedes Benz. Like 

many of the other victims burglarized in the conspiracy, L.L. found kitchen 

knives on a table next to the bed and on the bed itself, and a pillowcase 

missing from a bedroom pillow.

Aguirre recalled the L.L. home from its long driveway. Aguirre 

further recalled Venegas and Duron going into this home and returning with 

“a lot of gold” including “chains, necklaces, rings [and] bracelets.” Aguirre 

specifically recalled Venegas bragged about how much gold they had stolen 

from this particular home, noting they had hit the “jackpot.” A photograph 

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of

 56
13

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

from Aguirre’s cell phone taken at 2:23 p.m. on the same day of the L.L. 

burglary showed Venegas wearing three gold chains ostensibly stolen from 

this home.

Aguirre testified there was a “gap” between the end of September and 

the beginning of October 2012 when they were not burglarizing homes 

because she and Venegas had a falling out after Aguirre learned she was 

pregnant with his child. She further testified that, when she was arrested on 

November 28, 2012, after a police chase (discussed post in connection with 

count 35), police found a “pink slip” in Aguirre’s car that had been stolen 

from the L.L. home.

Cell phone records for this day showed an outgoing call from 

Venegas’s phone to Antar’s phone at 2:17 p.m. lasting one minute 25 

seconds that connected to a cell tower a mile west of the L.L. residence. At 

about 2:56 p.m., Aguirre received a call on one of her cell phones that 

accessed a tower in downtown San Diego, near the Jewelers Exchange. At 

5:52 p.m. there was an outgoing call from Venegas’s phone and at 5:55:39 

p.m., there was an incoming call from Antar’s phone to Venegas’s phone 

that lasted only two seconds. However, 10 seconds later, the records showed 

an incoming call from Antar’s phone to Venegas’s phone lasting two 

minutes one second.

On this record, we conclude substantial evidence, and the inferences 

derived therefrom, supports Antar’s conviction on count 11 under a 

conspiracy theory. (See Covarrubias, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 890; Rodrigues, 

supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 1135.)

Count 12:

C.S. testified that on October 16, 2012, she resided in a home located 

on Camino Elevado on the border of Chula Vista and Bonita; that when she 

returned home from work at about 4:30 p.m. that day, she opened her garage 

door and found a bicycle displaced on the floor; that she opened her door to 

the family room and saw a “big mess”; that an aluminum block she kept 

outside had been thrown through a window in her home office, scattering 

glass on the floor; that in several of the rooms, items were taken out of 

drawers and thrown onto the floor; and that many precious heirlooms that 

had been in her family for generations had been stolen.

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 13 of

 56
14

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

C.S. estimated that she lost close to $50,000 in jewelry and foreign 

currency, which she had collected in her travels. Like many of the other 

burglary victims, C.S. stated a pillowcase from a bedroom pillow was 

missing. After the break-in, C.S. went to a sheriff’s station on at least two 

occasions and also viewed pictures at least once in an attempt to identify 

some of the stolen items. C.S. identified a gold bangle bracelet; some 

crystal; two plates; a specially ordered thumb drive; and what she described 

as some “junkie stuff.” According to C.S., the items recovered and returned 

to her were of minimal value in contrast to the items that were stolen.

Cell phone records showed phone activity that day between Venegas’s 

and Duron’s phones at 2:44 p.m. near the C.S. residence. In addition, at 

4:31 p.m. there was an incoming call from Antar’s phone to Venegas’s 

phone lasting 25 seconds; and at 4:44 p.m., there was an incoming call from 

the Duron phone to the Venegas phone that accessed a cell tower in 

downtown San Diego, near the Jewelers Exchange where, according to 

Aguirre and Montes, Venegas alone would meet Antar and exchange the 

loot for money.

On this record, we conclude substantial evidence supports Antar’s 

conviction on count 12 under a conspiracy theory. (See Covarrubias, supra, 

1 Cal.5th at p. 890; Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 1135.)

Count 13:

Chula Vista Police Officer Carlos Marques testified that he was on 

patrol in the evening of October 17, 2012, when he was dispatched to a 

home on Huerto Place in Chula Vista; that Officer Marques contacted the 

homeowner, A.M.; and that once inside, it appeared the home had been 

“ransacked” as “[d]rawers were out, clothing [was] on the floor, various 

items throughout the – on the floors, beds.” On the north end of the house, 

Officer Marques found a bedroom window had been smashed, ostensibly by 

a “roof tile” that was lying nearby on the ground.

Cell phone records for October 17, showed an incoming call from 

Antar’s phone to Venegas’s phone at 1:27 p.m.; and phone activity between 

Aguirre’s phone and Venegas’s phone at 2:36 p.m. that accessed a cell 

phone tower about a mile south of the A.M. residence. At 3:40 p.m., there 

was an incoming call from Antar’s phone to Venegas’s phone; at 4:14 p.m. 

there was a call lasting 33 seconds from Venegas’s phone to Antar’s phone; 

and at 4:43 p.m., there was an outgoing call from Venegas’s phone that 

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 14 of

 56
15

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

accessed a cell tower in downtown San Diego, near Antar’s “store” in the 

Jewelers Exchange where Venegas and Antar always met.

On this record, we conclude substantial evidence supports Antar’s 

conviction on count 13 under a conspiracy theory. (See Covarrubias, supra, 

1 Cal.5th at p. 890; Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 1135.)

Counts 14 and 15:

Both of these counts took place on October 19, 2012. In connection 

with count 14 involving attempted first degree burglary, retired San Diego 

Police Officer D.H. testified he then resided on Encantada Court in Chula 

Vista; that after he arrived home that day, someone rang the doorbell over 

and over again for about 20 to 30 seconds, as if the person was in “panic 

mode”; that when he peeked out the window, he saw an unrecognizable 

white Cadillac parked in his driveway; and that he then went to the front 

door and saw a Hispanic female at the door, whom he also did not recognize. 

As a result, D.H. neither answered the door nor alerted the female to the fact 

he was home. A short time later, D.H. saw the white Cadillac leave the culde-sac.

About 10 minutes later, D.H. heard a loud “banging” noise at the back 

of his home. D.H. testified that when he had come home, he had opened a 

sliding glass door but had purposely kept the screen closed; that on 

investigation, he saw the screen door had been opened about a foot; and that 

he then went outside but saw nobody. About an hour later, a neighbor 

contacted D.H. D.H. went to the neighbor’s home and saw “[e]verything 

was kind of messed up and out of place.”

Aguirre testified she recalled the D.H. home, which had an American 

flag hanging “in front.” Aguirre drove her pearl white Cadillac, which she 

had purchased in mid-August 2012, to this home and, at Venegas’s request, 

rang the doorbell and then reported back to Venegas and Duron that nobody 

had answered. When Duron left and then returned to the car, he told Aguirre 

as soon as he had opened the back door to this home he saw someone inside, 

walking down the stairs. Duron thus quickly returned to the car.

J.C. testified in connection with count 15 that he resided in a home 

located on Encantada Court in Chula Vista, next door to the D.H. home; that 

on the day of the break-in, he left home at about 1:30 and returned at about 

4:00 p.m.; that as he went inside, he found bags of new clothing by the front 

door, which previously had been upstairs; that there was a similar bag on top 

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 15 of

 56
16

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

of the car parked in the garage; that the hood to the car was open, as was the 

driver’s side door; that everything in the living room had been thrown 

around; and that one of the screens to a window in the back of the house had 

been removed and the window opened. Before the break-in, J.C. estimated 

he and his wife had about 12 such bags of clothing. After the break-in, his 

wife found only two such bags upstairs.

Besides bags of clothes, items taken from J.C.’s home included a 

bracelet that was in his son’s bedroom; his wife’s gold necklace; some 

jewelry including a rosary; and $560 in cash among other items. Also taken 

was the family's two-month-old German Shepherd puppy.

Aguirre testified when Venegas returned from the J.C. home he stated 

it was full of new clothes and not worth the money to carry all of them out to 

the car. As they were driving away, Aguirre recalled seeing a German 

Shepard puppy running toward them. At Duron’s request, Aguirre stopped 

the car and Duron, in response, called out to the dog. When the dog 

approached the car, Duron picked it up and they drove off.

A photograph taken from Antar’s computer discovered as a result of 

the December 3, 2013, search of his “store” showed a rosary sitting atop a 

laptop matching Antar’s laptop computer. The photograph was taken at 5:25 

p.m. on October 19, 2012 – the same day the J.C. home was burglarized and 

a rosary was taken.

Investigator Holmes testified that cell phone records for counts 14 and 

15 showed an incoming call from Antar’s phone to Venegas’s phone at 

12:57 p.m. Between 3:48 and 4:01 p.m., there were four calls from Duron’s 

phone that accessed a cell tower about a “quarter mile or less” from the D.H. 

and J.C. residences.

On this record, we conclude substantial evidence supports Antar’s 

conviction of attempted first degree burglary as charged in count 14 and of 

first degree burglary as charged in count 15 under a conspiracy theory. (See 

Covarrubias, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 890; Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 

1135.)

Count 16:

R.R. testified that on October 23, 2012, she resided in a home located 

on Choc Cliff Drive in Bonita; that on this day, she left the house at about 

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 16 of

 56
17

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10:30 a.m. and went to visit her husband in the hospital; and that when she 

returned with her daughter at about 9:00 p.m., they found the lights in the 

garage on and the door to the house unlocked. On entering the home, R.R. 

found her husband’s old wallet on the floor. R.R. also found a screwdriver 

had been left on a table by the stairs. When she went to the back of the 

house, she found the French doors leading to the patio had been “pushed in” 

and “broken.”

Inside the master bedroom, R.R. found all of her belongings “thrown 

on the floor” and “all over the place.” Like many of the other homes 

burglarized in the conspiracy, R.R. found missing a pillowcase from one of 

the bedroom pillows. Also taken was her jewelry and a small safe that 

contained important papers.

Aguirre recalled the R.R. home from its driveway and the steps to the 

front door. Aguirre further recalled Duron and Venegas stole a safe from 

this home. Afterwards, Aguirre testified that they all went to Venegas’s 

home, where they used a drill to open the safe.

Investigator Holmes testified cell phone records from this date 

showed an incoming call from Antar’s phone to Venegas's phone at 11:29 

a.m. At 1:31 p.m., a call from Venegas’s phone to one of Aguirre’s phones 

connected to a cell tower about a mile south of the R.R. residence. The 

records further showed an incoming call from Antar’s phone to Venegas’s 

phone at 3:15 p.m. lasting 43 seconds, which accessed a tower about a 

quarter-mile east of Venegas’s home, and an incoming call to Duron’s phone 

at 3:53 p.m. that accessed a cell tower in downtown San Diego, near the 

Jewelers Exchange where Antar’s “store” was located and where Antar 

would meet Venegas after almost every burglary.

On this record, we conclude substantial evidence supports Antar’s 

conviction on count 16 under a conspiracy theory. (See Covarrubias, supra, 

1 Cal.5th at p. 890; Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 1135.)

Count 17:

G.L. testified that on October 24, 2012, he resided in a home located 

on Oakpoint Avenue in Chula Vista; that when he returned from work that 

day at about 5:00 p.m., he found his sliding glass door in the back of the 

house “totally shattered”; that on top of the kitchen table was a rock from his 

backyard that had been used to break the glass; and that the inside of his 

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 17 of

 56
18

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

house was “[a]ll ransacked.” In particular, G.L. stated the dresser drawers in 

the bedroom were “torn out,” his clothes were scattered across the floor, and 

the mattress was “tossed over.” Missing from the house were signed 

baseballs G.L. collected; jewelry; and a laptop computer. A few months 

after the break-in, G.L. went to a sheriff’s station but could not identify any 

items taken from his home. At some later point, he was shown photographs 

that included some of the signed baseballs that had been stolen from his 

home on October 24.

Aguirre recalled the burglary of the G.L. home from the “old 

baseballs” they had stolen.

Investigator Holmes testified that cell phone records from this date 

showed an outgoing call at 2:45 p.m. from one of Aguirre's phones that 

accessed a cell tower about a mile and a quarter from the G.L. residence. At 

2:51 p.m., there was an incoming call to Venegas’s phone from Antar's 

phone lasting one minute 21 seconds, which accessed a tower about a mile 

from Venegas’s home.

On this record, we conclude substantial evidence – and the inferences 

to be drawn from such evidence – supports Antar’s conviction on count 17 

under a conspiracy theory. (See Covarrubias, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 890; 

Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 1135.)

Count 18:

P.F. testified that on October 25, 2012, she resided in a home located 

on Kent Street in Chula Vista; that as she approached the home at about 7:45 

p.m., she saw the garage door and the door leading to the inside of the house 

open; and that she then noticed her parents’ car, which had been parked in 

the garage, was gone. P.F. noted the mailbox in the front of the house was 

“totally off the bolts on the sidewalk, it was scraped on the side, and was 

pushed over” near some bushes. P.F. immediately called 911.

From the outside, P.F. saw a screen missing from a window in the 

master bedroom. After the home was secured, she went inside and found a 

scrape on the wall in the hallway and her parents’ room “ransacked.” On the 

floor in her parents’ room, P.F. saw a blue-lined gun case had been opened, 

with the gun missing.

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 18 of

 56
19

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

P.F.’s father, A.F., testified that his daughter lived at the family home; 

that he owned a commemorative weapon, which he kept in a blue-lined gun 

case; that the car taken from the home was recovered the same day as the 

break-in; that a handicap placard he kept inside the car was missing when 

the car was recovered; and that also taken from the house were three 

firearms, $4,000 in cash, a Rolex watch, and myriad “Marine Corps 

commemorative coins.”

Aguirre recalled the burglary of the P.F. home from the “little trailer 

parked” in the front. Aguirre remembered driving Venegas and Duron to 

this home in her Cadillac. Items subsequently recovered from Aguirre’s car 

were traced back to the P.F. burglary.

Investigator Holmes testified that cell phone records from this date 

showed an incoming call at 10:29 a.m. from Antar’s phone to Venegas’s 

phone lasting one minute 27 seconds. At 3:32 p.m., phone records showed 

an outgoing call from Duron’s phone that connected to a cell phone tower 

about three-quarters of a mile south of the P.F. residence. Beginning at 4:58 

p.m., the records showed three incoming calls in rapid succession to 

Venegas’s phone that accessed a cell tower in downtown San Diego, near 

Antar’s “store” in the Jewelers Exchange. Finally, at 8:49 p.m. there was 

incoming call from Antar’s phone to Venegas’s phone.

What’s more, a photograph of a shotgun with a United States Customs

logo taken on October 25, 2012 – the same day as the burglary of the P.F. 

residence – was found on Antar’s computer. The photograph was taken with 

a smartphone and the GPS coordinates showed it was snapped about a 

“mile” from Kent Street, where the P.F. home was located.

Also found on Antar’s computer was a photograph of a gun with a 

“US Customs Special Agent label.” Like the first, this second photograph 

was taken on October 25. The GPS coordinates of the second photograph 

showed it was snapped in the “same area” as the first photograph, but it 

appeared that, whomever took the picture with a smartphone, was moving in 

a “westbound” direction.

Another picture of a “black and white design” was also found on 

Antar’s computer and was taken at 4:18 p.m. on the same day the P.F. home 

was burglarized. Like the first and second photographs, the third photograph 

was snapped in the “same general area” using a smartphone, and, based on 

GPS coordinates, showed further movement in a westbound direction.

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 19 of

 56
20

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

On this record, we conclude substantial evidence supports Antar’s 

conviction on count 18 under a conspiracy theory. (See Covarrubias, supra, 

1 Cal.5th at p. 890; Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 1135.)

Count 19

A.A. testified that on October 31, 2012, she resided in a home located 

on Wheeling Lane in Bonita; that when she came home at around 2:30 p.m., 

she found the “whole house” had been “ransacked”; that drawers “were 

pulled out, clothes [were] everywhere,” and items that had been on the 

cabinets “were knocked down, like literally everything was everywhere”; 

that a diamond ring and some costume jewelry were taken; and that the door 

to her parents’ room, which she kept locked, was broken. Inside her parents’ 

room, A.A. found two large butcher knives on the floor.

A.A.’s mother, M.A., confirmed that the family home was broken into 

on October 31; that her daughter A.A. and her own mother were the first to 

discover the break-in; that on inspection, M.A. found all her jewelry had 

been stolen, including her wedding ring, a black pearl necklace, and a gold 

chain necklace; and that some expensive purses and $400 in cash were also 

missing. M.A. stated at some point after the break-in, they went to a 

sheriff’s station to view items recovered by police. She only identified a 

single black pearl earring belonging to her.

Investigator Holmes testified that cell phone records from October 31, 

2012, showed an outgoing call from one of Aguirre’s phones at 1:44 p.m. 

that accessed a cell tower less than a quarter-mile west of the A.A. 

residence. At 2:22 p.m., a call was placed from Venegas’s phone to Antar’s 

phone lasting 38 seconds, which accessed a cell tower about a mile and a 

quarter from the A.A. home. Beginning at 3:07 p.m., there were four calls 

from Venegas’s phone that accessed a cell tower in downtown San Diego, 

near the Jewelers Exchange where Venegas and Antar would meet after the 

burglaries.

On this record, we conclude substantial evidence supports Antar’s 

conviction on count 19 under a conspiracy theory of vicarious liability. (See 

Covarrubias, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 890; Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 

1135.)

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 20 of

 56
21

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Count 20:

S.K. testified that on November 1, 2012, she resided in a home located 

on Redlands Place in Bonita; that when she arrived home that day, a 

neighbor informed her that her house had been burglarized; and that when 

she entered the home, like many other victims she found a back bedroom 

patio door had been smashed and her bedroom “completely trashed.” 

Missing from the house was a “great deal of jewelry,” including a collection 

of opals, and a tablet.

S.K. was invited by detectives to a property viewing in both 2013 and 

2014. At the first viewing in 2013, she was unable to identify any of her 

missing property. At the second viewing in 2014, she identified a silver 

necklace and bracelet; a few pieces of costume jewelry; and a turquoise 

silver ring.

According to investigator Holmes, cell phone records for this date 

showed an incoming call at 8:43 a.m. from Antar’s phone to Venegas’s 

phone; an outgoing call from Venegas’s phone to Antar’s phone at 11:02 

a.m. lasting one minute 22 seconds; and a minute later, an outgoing call

from Venegas's phone to Fults’s phone. Both of these calls accessed the 

same cell tower. At 2:51 p.m., Venegas’s phone received an incoming call 

that connected to a tower about a quarter-mile west of the S.K. residence.

Beginning at 3:10 p.m., cell phone records further showed three 

outgoing calls all within a few seconds of each other from Venegas’s phone 

to Antar’s phone that connected to a tower about a quarter-mile from the 

Jewelers Exchange, where, according to Aguirre and Montes, Venegas 

would go and exchange the loot for money. Also at 3:10 p.m., there was an 

outgoing call from Venegas’s phone to Antar’s phone lasting one minute 15 

seconds; and another call from Venegas’s phone to Antar’s phone at 3:12 

p.m. lasting 43 seconds.

On this record, we conclude substantial evidence supports Antar’s 

conviction on count 21 under a conspiracy theory. (See Covarrubias, supra, 

1 Cal.5th at p. 890; Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 1135.)

Counts 22 and 23:

Counts 22 and 23 took place on November 2, 2012. C.M. testified in 

connection with count 22 that she resided at a home on Southview Circle in 

Chula Vista; that on this day, she stayed home sick; that while her children 

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 21 of

 56
22

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

were napping, she heard the doorbell ring; that because she was not feeling 

well, she ignored it until someone started “pounding” on the front door; that 

because she did not want her children awakened, she went downstairs, 

peeked outside, and saw a female knocking on the door; that the female was 

petite, in her early 20’s, had dark hair and a large, “very elaborate,” 

“colorful” tattoo on her arm/shoulder area; and that when she opened the 

door, the female asked for a person C.M. did not recognize.

Shortly after C.M. returned upstairs, she heard a “really loud noise.” 

She went back downstairs, looked out the window, but saw nothing. Later 

that afternoon, C.M. learned there had been a burglary at her neighbor’s 

house, the J.S.’s (i.e., count 23). A few months after this incident, C.M. was 

contacted by detectives. After being admonished, C.M. was shown a 

photographic lineup and identified photograph No. 2 as the female who had 

banged on her door on November 2. That female was Aguirre.

J.S. testified in connection with count 23 that, shortly after 2:00 p.m., 

he and his wife left their home and headed out of town; and that about 20 

minutes later as they were driving, the alarm company called and informed 

him various “sensors” had been activated in the home. As a result, they 

returned home to find police cars parked in front of their house. After 

deactivating the alarm, J.S. saw the back sliding glass door had been 

shattered. J.S. also noticed a fresh “oil stain” in the driveway. On 

inspection, J.S. found a “dent” in a patio chair, which he surmised had been 

used to smash the glass door.

Inside the master bedroom, J.S. found all the clothes had been pulled 

out of drawers, and his wife's jewelry boxes empty. Also taken was a duffle 

bag.

J.S.’s wife, S.S., testified “gold shells,” bracelets, and various other 

items of jewelry were stolen during the break-in; that at some later point, 

perhaps January 2013, a detective contacted her and showed her some 

pictures of items that had been recovered in a car; and that from these 

pictures, she identified bracelets, a couple of rings, and a medallion that 

belonged to her.

Cell phone records for November 2, 2012, showed an outgoing call 

from one of Aguirre’s phones accessing a cell tower about three-quarters of 

a mile from Fults’s residence located in the Spring Valley area. At 2:26 

p.m., there was an incoming call to Venegas’s phone that accessed a cell 

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 22 of

 56
23

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

tower about a mile north of the C.M. and J.S. residences and at 3:58 p.m. 

there was an outgoing call from Venegas’s phone to Antar’s phone lasting 

33 seconds. Finally, at 4:15 p.m., records showed an incoming call from 

Fults’s phone to Venegas’s phone that accessed a cell tower about a quarter 

of a mile from the Jewelers Exchange, where, according to coconspirators 

Aguirre and Montes, Venegas would go to meet Antar to exchange the loot 

for money.

On this record, we conclude substantial evidence supports Antar’s

conviction for attempted first degree burglary in count 22 and for first 

degree burglary in count 23 under a conspiracy theory. (See Covarrubias, 

supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 890; Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 1135.)

Count 24:

K.D. testified that, on November 5, 2012, she and her husband, D.D., 

were residing in a home on Bonita Woods Drive in Bonita; that when she 

came home from church that day at 1:30 p.m., she found all of the drawers 

in the exercise room opened and their contents “dumped out” on the floor; 

that someone had removed the screen from, and entered the house through, a 

window in the home office; and that “every piece of jewelry” was taken, 

including items belonging to her husband, and jewelry that belonged to her 

biological mother.

In summer 2013, and again in about January 2014, when stolen items 

were recovered from Antar’s “store,” K.D. and D.D. went to a sheriff’s 

station and identified “quite a few things” that had been taken, including an 

earring; a gold necklace “without the solitaire”; another necklace; multiple 

watches; two “[t]ooth fairy” “shaped containers”; a coin from the 1500’s; 

various bracelets and pendants; and company pins.

D.D. testified he was at a doctor’s appointment at the time of the 

November 5 break-in; that he and his wife twice went to property viewings; 

that he was able to recognize a service pin from his company; a Spanish coin 

that was missing its golden bezel; a class ring; and some watches that 

belonged to his grandfathers.

Aguirre recalled the K.D. home from its gate. Aguirre testified that 

she drove Venegas and Duron to this home in her Cadillac. After she 

knocked on the front door and nobody answered, Venegas and Duron 

entered the home.

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 23 of

 56
24

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Cell phone evidence for this date showed an incoming call to 

Venegas’s phone from Antar’s phone at 12:11 p.m. lasting one minute 22 

seconds; an incoming call from Fults’s phone to Venegas’s phone at 1:54 

p.m. that accessed a tower about a quarter of a mile away from the K.D. 

residence; an outgoing call from Venegas’s phone to Antar’s phone at 2:13 

p.m. lasting 44 seconds; and an outgoing call from Duron’s phone at 2:42 

p.m. that connected to a cell tower about a quarter-mile northeast of Antar’s 

“store” located inside the Jewelers Exchange.

A photograph dated November 5, 2012 – the same day the K.D.

residence was burglarized – taken at 3:25 p.m. by a smartphone was 

recovered from Antar’s computer. This photograph showed “an assortment 

of jewelry.” Another photograph from this same date also found on Antar’s 

computer showed someone holding a “plastic bag of assorted and loose 

jewelry.” When this photograph was compared side-by-side with a 

photograph of Venegas’s hand, which was tattooed with “‘Paulina’ and 

‘Cash Only,’” it appeared there were similarities with respect to the “loop” 

in the “‘y’” in “Only” and the “‘h’” in “Cash.”

Based on this evidence, we conclude Antar was properly convicted on 

count 24 of first degree burglary under a conspiracy theory. (See 

Covarrubias, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 890; Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 

1135.)

Count 26:

J.B. testified that on November 8, 2012, he resided at a home located 

on Lavade Lane in Bonita; that when he arrived home from work at about 

4:00 p.m., he entered through the front door and found the contents from the 

front closet on the floor and the living room television set missing; that 

many items that had been in drawers had been pulled out and thrown on the 

floor, including in the kitchen and in the bedrooms; and that when he went 

into the garage, he found his truck, which had “two amps, three speakers, in 

the back,” had been stolen.

Upstairs, J.B. found his wife’s jewelry and a large, flat screen 

television missing. Like many other victims in the burglary ring, J.B. found 

kitchen knives in areas that had been ransacked. Also missing from the

house was his wallet; his wife’s tablet; and a .40-caliber firearm.

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 24 of

 56
25

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Aguirre testified extensively about the burglary of this particular 

home. She recalled driving Venegas and Duron to this home and both of 

them going inside. Sometime later as she waited for them in her Cadillac, 

Aguirre saw the garage door to the home open and Venegas and Duron leave 

in a vehicle. Aguirre saw there was a flat screen television inside the stolen 

vehicle.

Aguirre followed the vehicle in her Cadillac. At some point, they 

stopped in the Fashion Valley area in front of a white house. According to 

Aguirre, Venegas stated they were at “Sam’s” house. Aguirre testified that 

as she waited in the Cadillac, she saw but did not talk to “Sam”; that this was 

the second time she had seen Antar; and that the first time she saw Antar he 

was exiting the Jewelers Exchange as she, Venegas, and Duron were driving 

away after Venegas met Antar to exchange loot for money. Aguirre 

identified Antar in court.

Aguirre recalled that shortly before the tandem drove to Antar’s 

home, they stopped “somewhere near downtown.” It was then Aguirre 

looked in the back of the stolen vehicle and saw it contained an extensive 

stereo system, which she described as consisting of “speakers” and a “box.” 

During this short stop, Venegas and Duron transferred the stolen flat screen 

television into the back of Aguirre’s car. Aguirre heard Venegas and Duron 

talking about “stripping” down the stolen vehicle. Aguirre recalled this 

burglary involved a “military home” based on various stickers or decals on 

the stolen vehicle.

Although this evidence alone is more than sufficient to support 

Antar’s first degree burglary conviction on count 26, there is more. Cell 

phone records for this date showed two incoming calls from Antar’s phone 

to Venegas’s phone at 11:03 a.m. and at 12:24 p.m.; an outgoing call from 

Venegas’s phone to Antar’s phone at 12:42 p.m. lasting one minute three 

seconds; and an outgoing call from Venegas’s phone to Fults’s phone at 2:34 

p.m. that accessed a tower about a mile west of the J.B. residence.

Phone records further showed an outgoing call from Venegas’s phone 

to Antar’s phone at 2:50 p.m. lasting one minute 39 seconds, which accessed 

a cell tower about a mile west of the J.B. residence. Beginning at 3:27 p.m., 

the records showed a series of calls involving the phones of Venegas and 

Antar, including two calls at 4:08 p.m.; another call at 4:23 p.m. lasting one 

minute 50 seconds; and two more calls at 4:49 p.m., one of which lasted 51 

seconds. At 4:54 p.m., there was an outgoing call from Venegas’s phone to 

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 25 of

 56
26

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Antar’s phone that accessed a cell tower about a quarter-mile from the 

Jewelers Exchange, where Venegas met Antar to swap the loot for money.

In addition, Antar’s computer was found to have several photographs 

taken by a smartphone on November 8, 2012 – the same day the J.B. 

residence was burglarized – of a flat screen television. A forensic analysis 

of Antar’s computer showed someone had searched the Internet at about 

4:15 p.m. that same day concerning the same model of flat screen television 

shown in the photographs. Also found on Antar’s computer were 

photographs of an equalizer and speaker equipment. Those photographs also 

were taken using a smartphone and were dated November 9, the day after 

the J.B. burglary and the theft of the vehicle containing extensive stereo 

equipment.

Based on this evidence, which is more than sufficient, we conclude 

Antar was properly convicted on count 26 under a conspiracy theory. (See 

Covarrubias, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 890; Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 

1135.)

Counts 27-32:

Counts 27-32 all took place on November 13, 2012. In connection 

with count 27, E.M. testified she resided in a home located on Forester Lane 

in Chula Vista; that on this day she left home around 8:00 a.m. and returned 

about 1:00 p.m. after bagging groceries for the poor; that on entering her culde-sac, she saw for the first time a light-colored Cadillac parked in front of a 

neighbor’s house; and that inside the Cadillac was a female with long dark 

hair sitting in the driver’s seat and a male sitting next to the female.

Once inside the residence, E.M. noticed the screen to the sliding glass 

door had been opened and her two indoor cats, who normally greeted her on 

arrival, were “nowhere to be found.” As she opened the sliding glass door, 

E.M. heard a “squeak[ing]” sound coming from the laundry room area. On 

investigation, she found a pet door on the laundry room door open about five 

inches. Panicked, E.M. also saw the door from the laundry room, which led 

outside, ajar.

Inside the master bedroom, E.M. found items scattered on the floor 

“in disarray.” She found her jewelry box almost completely empty except 

for a pair or two of “cheap earrings.” Also missing were her gym bag; 

money; and tie clips among other items. Like many other victims, E.M. 

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 26 of

 56
27

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

found kitchen knives in the area that had been ransacked during the break-in, 

including one knife on a counter near the master bathroom and another knife 

on the floor, underneath clothing that had been pulled out of the walk-in 

closet.

C.D. testified in connection with count 28 that she resided in a home 

located on Bonita View Drive in Bonita; that after being picked up at work 

that day by her husband, they approached their home and saw a white 

Cadillac parked next to their driveway; and that C.D. immediately became 

concerned because a female with long hair was sitting in the driver’s seat 

and the female appeared to be nervous, as her hands were “shaking.” 

According to C.D., as soon as she and her husband drove up, the Cadillac 

sped off.

Once inside the home, C.D. found items littered on her bedroom floor. 

C.D. was “shock[ed]” by the condition of her bedroom. Items taken from 

the house included “a lot of jewelry” including some belonging to her 

mother, a Rolex watch, a graduation ring, as well as multiple purses and 

clothes.

About three days after the break-in, C.D. met with detectives. Using a 

photographic lineup, C.D. identified the female she had seen “shaking” in 

the Cadillac. The female was later identified as Aguirre. C.D. also 

identified the white Cadillac from another photograph. C.D. testified she 

went to a property viewing in 2013, but was unable to identify any items that 

had been stolen from her home.

Aguirre recalled driving Venegas and Duron to this home in her 

Cadillac; and that they went inside the home while she waited in the car.

In connection with count 29, R.S. testified that his mother, M., resided 

in a home on Bonita View Drive in Bonita; that on this day, R.S. drove his 

mother home and when he opened the front door at about 6:30 p.m., he 

immediately felt a “draft”; that on inspection, he found the sliding glass door 

in the dining room open; that when he went into his niece’s room, he saw 

her things had been pulled out of drawers and “thrown all over the floor”; 

that he found his mother’s bedroom in the same condition as his niece’s 

bedroom; that his mother was missing jewelry; and that while they waited 

for police to arrive, they went outside and discovered the neighbor’s house 

directly across the street (i.e., count 28) also had been burglarized.

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 27 of

 56
28

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Aguirre recalled the R.S. home. She testified she knocked on the 

front door and, when nobody answered, Venegas and Duron went inside 

while she kept watch in her Cadillac. Shortly thereafter, Venegas and Duron 

returned with “bags” and “purses.” As Venegas and Duron were getting into 

Aguirre’s car, the neighbors who lived across the street came home. 

According to Aguirre, Venegas instructed Aguirre to drive off.

J.M. testified in connection with count 30. J.M. resided at a home 

located on Paseo Della Vista in Bonita; that he rented a portion of his home 

to J.St. and J.St.’s wife; that when J.M. returned home midday and went 

upstairs, he saw the door to J.St.’s room at the end of the hallway had been 

broken; that when he went into his wife’s bedroom, he saw her things had 

been thrown on the floor; and, like many other homes burglarized during the 

conspiracy, he found a knife had been left in the area searched during the 

break-in. J.M. testified two of his watches were stolen.

J.St. testified he and his wife were living in the J.M. residence on the 

day of the break-in; that their entrance was separate from the J.M. entrance; 

that their entire unit had been “totally ransacked”; and that among the items 

taken from them was a $4,000 12-gauge shotgun that was a collector’s item.

Aguirre recalled the burglary of the J.M./J.St. residence. She testified 

that she went to the front door, knocked, and nobody answered. Venegas 

and Duron next entered the home and were inside for about 30 minutes. As 

they were leaving the home, the owner arrived. Aguirre in response drove 

her Cadillac down a grassy hill and picked up Venegas and Duron, who had 

fled down the hill. Aguirre recalled an “antique shotgun” was taken from 

this home.

N.L. testified that, in connection with count 31, she resided in a home 

located on Snaffle Bit Place in Bonita; that she left the house at about 2:15 

p.m. to pick up her children at school and returned at about 6:00 p.m.; and 

that when she pulled into the garage, she noticed cabinet doors open, a car 

seat from her husband’s truck on the garage floor, and the door to her 

husband’s truck open. On inspection, N.L. saw some boxes in the bed of the

truck, which had been full of sports memorabilia, open and their contents 

disturbed.

Scared, N.L. waited for her husband to arrive before going inside the 

house. Once inside, they saw the kitchen window wide open and its screen 

removed. Missing from downstairs was a laptop computer. Upstairs, they 

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 28 of

 56
29

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

found the master bedroom had been “completely torn apart.” Among items 

taken from the upstairs were jewelry, including wedding rings and wedding 

bands; her daughter’s iPod; and a backpack. As was the case in many of the 

homes burglarized during the conspiracy, N.L. found a kitchen knife on the 

bedroom floor, next to the nightstand.

In connection with count 32, D.C. testified that he resided in a home 

located on Sprinter Lane in Bonita; that at about 2:50 p.m. on this day, he 

received a call from his alarm company that someone was inside the house; 

and that as a result of this “emergency,” he went home and found the screen 

covering the master bathroom window removed and the window, which was 

“[c]losed at all times,” open.

After police arrived and secured the home, D.C. went inside and like 

many other homes burglarized during the conspiracy, found it had been 

“ransacked” and it looked “like a tornado went through [it].” Items stolen 

included a laptop computer; jewelry; and a pair of glasses.

Aguirre recalled the D.C. home from its gated doorway.

Phone records for counts 27-32 showed a series of calls that morning 

between Fults’s and Venegas’s phones and later, between Venegas’s and 

Antar’s phones, including a call involving the latter two phones lasting one 

minute six seconds. Phone records further showed an incoming call from 

Venegas’s phone to one of Aguirre’s phones at 12:38 p.m. that accessed a 

tower within a few hundred yards of the J.M./J.St. residence (count 30, 

ante); another series of calls about three-quarters of a mile from the C.D. and 

R.S. residences (counts 28 and 29, respectively); and a call made at 4:01 

p.m. from Venegas’s phone to Antar’s phone lasting 54 seconds, which 

accessed a cell tower about a quarter-mile east of the Jewelers Exchange, 

where Antar’s “store” was located and where Venegas and Antar would 

meet to exchange the loot for money.

Based on this record, we conclude substantial evidence supports 

Antar's convictions on counts 27-32 under a conspiracy theory of vicarious 

liability. (See Covarrubias, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 890; Rodrigues, supra, 8 

Cal.4th at p. 1135.)

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 29 of

 56
30

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Count 33 and 34:

The burglaries charged in counts 33 and 34 took place on November 

15, 2012. M.J. testified that, in connection with count 33, he was residing in 

a home located on Rio Vista Lane in Bonita; that when he returned home 

from work that day at about 4:50 p.m. he noticed the front door was 

unlocked; that when he went through the front door, he heard a “crunching” 

sound under his feet; and that when he turned the light on, like many other 

victims of the burglary conspiracy he saw the sliding glass door near the 

kitchen had been shattered.

On investigation, M.J. saw that “most of the drawers were either 

opened or thrown on the floor” in his daughter’s room and that her clothes 

“were scattered about.” In the master bedroom, he found a crowbar and 

shovel had been left near the bed, and many drawers from the dresser had 

been opened and some thrown on the bed. Items stolen from the house 

included his wife’s 14–karat gold wedding band; an antique wedding band; 

and an iPad.

Aguirre recalled this home from the trees and its garage. Aguirre 

stated Venegas and Duron entered this house while she waited in her 

Cadillac.

In connection with count 34, O.T. testified that she and her family 

resided in a home located on Wheeling Lane in Bonita; that at about 1:00 

p.m. that day, she received a phone call from the alarm company informing 

her that the home alarm had been activated and that police had been 

dispatched; and that she arrived home about 15 minutes later. After police 

cleared the home, O.T. went inside and, as was common in many of the 

homes burglarized during the conspiracy, found the sliding glass door to a 

bedroom had been smashed with an object from the garden. Items stolen 

included a man’s gold watch; at least 15 pairs of earrings including some 

that were gold; and about $2,000 in cash that was in a briefcase, which also 

was taken. In January 2014, O.T. went to a sheriff’s station and identified 

the stolen briefcase, which was empty.

Aguirre recalled knocking at the front door of this house, returning to 

the Cadillac, and Venegas and Duron going inside as she waited in her car.

Per Investigator Holmes, cell phone records for this date showed 

phone activity involving Venegas’s and Duron’s phone about a mile south of 

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 30 of

 56
31

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the M.J. residence; about a mile and a half south of the O.T. home; and later, 

about a quarter-mile south of the Jewelers Exchange where Antar’s “store” 

was located.

Based on this evidence, we conclude Antar was properly convicted on 

counts 32 and 33 under a conspiracy theory. (See Covarrubias, supra, 1 

Cal.5th at p. 890; Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 1135.)

Count 35:

K.N. testified that on November 28, 2012, she and her family were 

residing in a home located on Bronco Place in Bonita; that at about 9:30 

a.m., a neighbor called and informed K.N. her home alarm was sounding; 

that when K.N. arrived home with her husband at about 10:00 a.m., she was 

met by police; and that when they went inside, as was typical of many other 

homes burglarized during the conspiracy, they found a rock on the floor of 

the master bedroom and the sliding glass door smashed. K.N. described the 

bedroom as being in disarray, with clothes thrown on the floor and drawers 

and a jewelry box opened and emptied. Items taken from the home included 

not only jewelry, but also a suitcase that was kept in the closet; a leather bag; 

and a small box that had checks and other items inside.

Aguirre testified that, as she waited in her Cadillac in front of this 

home, she saw a neighbor watching her as he watered his lawn. Aguirre 

heard an alarm sound and called Duron and Venegas, but neither answered. 

Concerned they would be caught, Aguirre drove her Cadillac about three or 

four houses down the street, out of sight from the neighbor. At some point, 

another neighbor came outside and, according to Aguirre, “actually chased 

[Duron] and [Venegas]” down the street. Aguirre then received a phone call 

from Venegas instructing her to unlock her car doors. She saw Venegas and 

Duron climb out of a backyard about two houses down from the Nicholas 

home. Aguirre picked them up and they sped off down some “back streets 

of . . . [the] Otay Ranch area.”

As she drove, Aguirre saw a police car traveling in the opposite 

direction. When the police car made a U-turn and began following the 

Cadillac, Venegas told Aguirre not to stop. Aguirre entered a freeway and 

drove to an area near Southeast San Diego, where one of her friends lived. 

Aguirre ended up crashing her car as she was being pursued by police. 

Although Venegas and Duron fled on foot, Aguirre stayed in the car because 

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 31 of

 56
32

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

she was then about three months pregnant with Venegas’s child. As noted 

ante, Aguirre was arrested that same day.

In a search of her car, police found a “pink slip” that had been taken 

from the K.N. residence; and a handicap placard that had been taken from 

the vehicle stolen from the P.F. residence (count 18, ante). Also found in 

Aguirre'’ car was a ring inscribed with the name, “[J.A.N.]”; a jewelry box; 

two pairs of gloves, including one pair of “mechanic-type” gloves; a safe; a 

wallet; a camera; and three cell phones. A picture taken from one of 

Aguirre’s cell phones showed Venegas wearing some of the gold chains they 

had stolen from the L.L. home.

Cell phone records on this date showed an incoming call from one of 

Aguirre’s phones to Venegas’s phone at 10:45 a.m. that accessed a tower 

about a mile from the K.N. residence. There also was an outgoing and 

incoming call to Venegas’s phone at 11:35 and 11:49 a.m., respectively, that 

accessed a tower in the same general area. At 12:24 p.m., there was an 

outgoing call from Venegas’s phone to Antar’s phone lasting 25 seconds; 

and an incoming call from Antar’s phone to Venegas’s phone at 12:30 p.m. 

lasting 45 seconds. The 12:24 and 12:30 p.m. calls connected to a cell tower 

near where the 5 and 15 freeways intersected, in an area also known as 

“Shelltown.”

Following the high-speed chase, an incoming call to Venegas’s phone 

at 3:34 p.m. accessed a cell tower about a quarter-mile from the Jewelers 

Exchange, where Antar’s “store” was located. At 8:35 p.m. that night, there 

was an outgoing call from Duron’s phone to the phone of Montes, a onetime conspiracy member.

On this record, we conclude ample evidence supports Antar’s 

conviction on count 35 under a conspiracy theory. (See Covarrubias, supra, 

1 Cal.5th at p. 890; Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 1135.)

Count 37:

C.Ma. testified that on March 11, 2013, she resided in a home located 

on Del Mar Trails Road in San Diego; that on this day when she returned 

home and entered through the garage at about 4:00 p.m., she found “bits of 

glass splattered between the kitchen and the dining room area”; that the front 

door was open about a foot; and that, like many other victims of the 

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 32 of

 56
33

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

residential burglary conspiracy, a sliding glass door had been shattered to 

gain entry. C.Ma. also saw a rock from their yard lying on the floor.

Upstairs, C.Ma. found two big drawers to her bureau open and empty. 

Missing from the drawers were jewelry she had collected for more than 30 

years; a teak box that contained letters from her mother; and coins. As was 

common in the burglary conspiracy, C.Ma. found a pillowcase from a 

bedroom pillow missing. Other items taken included a laptop computer and 

a gun owned by her husband.

Phone records from this date showed an incoming call to Fults’s cell 

phone at 1:11 p.m. that accessed cell towers (because of a different 

technology used by one of the cell providers) anywhere from about a mile to 

within a few hundred yards of the C.Ma. residence. Beginning at 6:22 p.m., 

the records also showed a series of calls between Venegas’s phone and the 

phones of Antar and/or Fults.

On this record, we conclude there is substantial evidence in 

connection with count 37, when considered in light of the whole record, to 

support Antar’s first degree burglary conviction under a conspiracy theory of 

liability. (See Covarrubias, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 890; Rodrigues, supra, 8 

Cal.4th at p. 1135.)

Count 38:

S.D. testified that on March 25, 2013, he lived in a home located on 

Amberglades Lane in San Diego; that after he returned home from lunch that 

day, he found a kitchen knife lying on a doormat located just outside the 

garage door; and that on investigation, he found two safes from two separate 

closets and a revolver missing. Near one of the closets that had been

searched in the break-in, S.D – like so many other victims – found another 

kitchen knife. Also like many other victims, S.D. found glass from a door 

had been “shattered,” as if someone had “kicked” it in to gain entry into the 

home.

Besides the safes and revolver, other items stolen from the home 

included jewelry; a jewelry box; and a computer. Later in 2013, S.D.’s wife 

identified some documents that had been taken during the burglary; one of 

the safes that contained the documents; and the revolver that had been inside 

the safe.

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 33 of

 56
34

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Cell phone records from this date showed a series of calls between 

2:39 and 2:44 p.m. involving Venegas’s phone that accessed a cell phone 

tower about half a mile west of the S.D. residence. At 3:48 p.m., there was 

an incoming call to Venegas’s phone from, and, at 4:02 p.m., there was an 

outgoing call from Venegas’s phone to, Antar’s phone, both of which 

accessed a cell tower about a quarter of a mile from Fults’s residence. At 

5:08 p.m., the records showed Venegas’s phone received a call that accessed 

a cell tower about a quarter-mile from the Jewelers Exchange, where 

Venegas would meet Antar and exchange the loot for money. At 6:58 p.m., 

there were four outgoing calls from Venegas’s phone to Antar’s phone, 

including one call lasting one minute 13 seconds and another call lasting 34 

seconds. At 7:18 p.m., there was another call from Venegas’s phone to 

Antar’s phone lasting 42 seconds, which accessed a cell tower about a halfmile east of the Jewelers Exchange.

On this record, we conclude there is more than sufficient evidence to 

support Antar’s conviction on count 38 under a conspiracy theory. (See 

Covarrubias, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 890; Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 

1135.)

Count 39:

C.G. testified that on April 2, 2013, he was living in a home located 

on Mustang Ridge Drive in the Carmel Valley area of San Diego; that he left 

home that day at about 11:15 a.m. and returned at about 12:35 p.m.; that on 

entry, he found glass on the floor in the breakfast nook area; and that when 

he entered his home office located at the back of the home, like so many 

other victims he found someone had used an item from outside (in this case, 

a stepping stone) to smash the glass in a dual pane door window to gain 

entry into the home. C.G. found an iPad missing from his office.

After police arrived and cleared the house, C.G. went upstairs and 

found his nightstand drawer resting on the bed. Missing from the master 

bedroom was a pearl necklace; a drawer from his late wife’s antique jewelry 

box; about $600 in cash; and a laptop computer.

Cell phone records on this date showed an incoming call from Antar’s 

phone to Venegas’s phone at 9:49 a.m. lasting one minute 13 seconds; and 

an incoming call to Fults’s phone at 10:25 a.m. that was connected to a 

tower about a mile or two from the C.G. residence. At 1:30 p.m., there was 

an incoming call from Antar’s phone to Venegas’s phone lasting one minute 

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 34 of

 56
35

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

six seconds; at 3:39 p.m., there was an outgoing call from Venegas’s phone 

to Antar’s phone lasting 55 seconds; and at 5:16 p.m., there was an incoming 

call from Antar’s phone to Venegas’s phone.

At 10:16 p.m., there was an incoming call from Antar’s phone to 

Venegas’s phone that connected to a tower about a half to three-quarters of a 

mile from the Jewelers Exchange; at 10:20 p.m., there was an incoming call 

from Antar’s phone to Venegas’s phone lasting 35 seconds, which accessed 

a cell tower about a third of a mile north of the Jewelers Exchange; at 10:24 

p.m., there was an outgoing call from Venegas’s phone to Antar’s phone 

also lasting for 35 seconds; and finally, at 10:30 p.m., there was an outgoing 

call from Fults’s phone.

Based on this substantial evidence, we conclude Antar was properly 

convicted on count 39 under a conspiracy theory. (See Covarrubias, supra, 

1 Cal.5th at p. 890; Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 1135.)

Count 40:

E.Z. testified that on April 4, 2013, she resided in a home located on 

Pine Glen Lane in El Cajon; that when she and her young baby arrived home 

at about 6:00 p.m., she climbed the stairs only to find a “little box” lying on 

the ground in the hallway; that she became frightened when she looked into 

her daughter’s room and saw all the dresser drawers open; and that when she 

went into the master bedroom, she saw her dresser drawers open and found 

all of her jewelry, which she had collected for more than 18 years, missing. 

As a result of the burglary, E.Z. refused to remain living in the home.

E.Z. twice went to a property viewing in an attempt to identify items 

taken during the break-in. As a result of the viewings, she identified a 

handbag; a gold watch that belonged to her husband and a similar watch that 

belonged to her; her wallet and its contents; necklaces and bracelets; 

earrings; several crosses and a rosary; cuff links; and coins among other 

items.

Cell phone records from this date showed an outgoing call at 11:25 

a.m. from Venegas’s phone to Antar’s phone lasting about one minute 36 

seconds. That particular call accessed a cell tower about three-quarters of a 

mile from the E.Z. residence. Phone records further showed calls between 

the phones of Venegas and Antar at 12:19 and again at 12:42 p.m. The 12:42 

p.m. call accessed a cell tower about a half-mile away from the Jewelers 

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 35 of

 56
36

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Exchange where, according to Aguirre and Montes, Venegas would meet 

Antar and exchange the loot for money.

What’s more, a photograph found on Antar’s computer taken on April 

4, 2013 – the same day as the E.Z. burglary – showed a ring resting on a 

“gram scale” on a desk inside Antar’s office. From the photograph, it 

appeared someone was in the process of “weighing” the ring.

In light of such evidence, we conclude Antar’s conviction on count 40 

was proper under a conspiracy theory. (See Covarrubias, supra, 1 Cal.5th at 

p. 890; Morante, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 433; Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at 

p. 1135.)

Count 41:

W.R. testified that on April 16, 2013, he and his wife resided in a 

home located on Eton Court in Chula Vista; that around 2:30 p.m. that day, 

he received a telephone call from his children that a door to the home was 

open; that when he arrived home, he found the door between the garage and 

kitchen completely broken from its frame; that he noticed his dog walked 

with a limp and appeared to have a lump on his head; and that right next to 

the dog door was a “cleaning stick” W.R. typically used to clean the pool.

On inspection, W.R. found that the master bedroom had been 

“completely tossed”; that the mattress was upside down; and that a safe kept 

in the closet had been torn from the wall and removed, ostensibly with either 

a crowbar or shovel, both of which had been left on the closet floor. The 

contents of the safe included guns; jewelry; money; pictures; documents; 

and family mementos among other items. Also taken from the house were 

his daughter’s jewelry box; his children’s “piggy banks”; an iPad; cameras; 

and video games. At a property viewing in summer 2013, W.R.’s wife, 

A.R., identified items taken from the home including their daughter’s 

jewelry box; some of their passports; their son’s baby teeth; watches; 

ammunition; and some jewelry.

A.R. testified that she went to two property viewings in an attempt to 

identify items stolen from their home. At the first viewing in 2013, she 

identified her wallet and its contents and a name tag she used for work. At 

the second property viewing in early 2014, after police searched Antar’s 

“store,” she identified several items of jewelry including pearls; rubies that 

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 36 of

 56
37

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

had been removed from a gold setting; a locket; and earrings. A.R. further 

testified she knew Venegas because he was her nephew.

Phone records from this date showed two incoming calls to Fults’s 

phone at 1:01 and 1:02 p.m., both of which accessed a cell tower about a 

quarter-mile north of the W.R. residence. Another call within the same 

general time frame involving Venegas’s phone accessed a tower about a 

mile east of the W.R. home. At 1:41 and 3:03 p.m., there were incoming 

calls to Venegas's phone from Antar’s phone; and at 3:55 p.m., there was an 

outgoing call from Venegas’s phone to Antar’s phone lasting 35 seconds. At 

4:30 p.m., there was an incoming call to Fults’s phone that accessed a cell 

tower about a quarter-mile west of the Jewelers Exchange. Near the same 

time, there was activity involving Venegas’s phone that again accessed a cell 

tower about a quarter of a mile away from the Jewelers Exchange.

This evidence is more than sufficient to support Antar’s conviction on 

count 41 under a conspiracy theory. (See Covarrubias, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 

890; Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 1135.)

Count 42:

Harvey H.K. testified that on April 18, 2013, he resided in a home 

located on Willowmere Lane in the Carmel Valley area of San Diego; that 

during the night while on vacation, San Diego police called and informed 

him the residence had been burglarized; and that in response, H.K. called his 

son who lived about a mile away. On inspection, H.K.’s son found the 

garage door open and police at the residence.

Again, like so many other homes burglarized during the conspiracy, 

entry into the H.K. home was made through the back of the house by 

“smash[ing]” a window. Also like most, if not all, of the other burglaries, 

the master bedroom had been “torn apart” during the break-in. Items taken 

from the home included a safe weighing about a 100 pounds that had been in 

the closet in the master bedroom. The contents of the safe included family 

passports and jewelry among other items.

Also stolen was H.K.’s wife’s car. When police found the car in 

Pacific Beach, its motor was running and its doors were open. Police 

tracked the car to H.K. When police went to the family home, it was then 

they discovered the home had been burglarized. In summer 2013, police 

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 37 of

 56
38

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

notified H.K. his safe had been found, including some of its contents such as 

passports and the pink slips to various cars.

Cell phone records from this date showed an outgoing call from 

Venegas’s phone to Antar’s phone at 1:28 p.m. lasting one minute seven 

seconds, which accessed a cell tower about two and a half miles north of the 

H.K. residence.

We conclude this evidence, when considered in light of the record as a

whole, supports Antar’s conviction on count 42 under a conspiracy theory. 

(See Covarrubias, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 890; Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at 

p. 1135.)

Count 43:

C.Mc. testified that in April 2013, she resided in a home located on 

Central Avenue in Bonita; that on April 1, she left at about 9:50 a.m. and 

returned about an hour later; that on returning, she found a “cupboard” open 

in the garage; that when she went inside the home, she found all the drawers 

in the kitchen had been opened and the back door “propped open” with a 

“big candleholder” from the patio; and that she immediately left the 

residence and called police.

After police secured the home, C.Mc. went back inside and found the 

doorknob to the laundry room door bent, ostensibly as a result of the door 

being pried open. Upstairs in the bedroom, C.Mc., like so many if not all 

other homes burglarized during the conspiracy, found it had been 

“ransacked.” C.Mc. testified that many pieces of family jewelry, including 

items she and her husband had each received from their parents, was stolen.

On April 22, C.Mc.’s home was broken into a second time. At about 

3:07 p.m. that day, her husband called and informed her the alarm company 

had contacted a neighbor because their alarm was sounding. When C.Mc. 

returned home, she saw a computer and television had been unplugged. 

Missing from the bedroom was jewelry that had not been taken during the 

first break-in and original “Barbie” and “Ken” collectible dolls that she 

stated were “worth quite a bit” of money. As was common in many of the 

other homes burglarized during the conspiracy, C.Mc. found a pillowcase 

from a bedroom pillow missing and a “butcher knife” from the kitchen lying 

on her bed.

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 38 of

 56
39

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

C.Mc. attended two property viewings at a sheriff's station. She 

identified a bracelet and a pearl necklace that had been taken during the two 

break-ins.

Cell phone evidence for this date included more than 63 slides 

prepared by investigator Holmes involving cell phones used in the 

conspiracy that connected to cell towers near such locations as the Jewelers 

Exchange; the Venegas residence; the Fults residence; and the C.Mc. 

residence in Bonita.

In light of this substantial evidence, we conclude Antar was properly 

convicted on count 43 under a conspiracy theory. (See Covarrubias, supra, 1 

Cal.5th at p. 890; Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 1135.)

Count 44:

M.D. testified that on April 23, 2013, he resided in a home located on 

Mountain Pass Road in San Diego; and that at about 3:00 or 4:00 p.m. that 

day, his girlfriend returned to the home and found its back door had been 

“smashed” and glass “everywhere.” M.D. immediately came home and met 

police. On inspection, M.D. saw another window had been smashed and its 

screen removed.

After the home had been secured, M.D. went inside and found it had 

been “trashed”; that inside the master bedroom, “everything” had been gone 

through and thrown about, including the mattress; that a storage chest had

been smashed against a wall, damaging both the floor tile and the wall; and 

that in several of the rooms, things had been taken out and thrown on the 

floor. Missing from the home was a safe and its contents including a firearm 

and jewelry. According to M.D., police later recovered papers that also had 

been in the safe.

Cell phone records from this date showed Fults’s phone accessed a 

cell tower about a half-mile north of the M.D.’s residence. At 1:24 p.m., 

Venegas’s phone made an outgoing call that accessed a cell tower in the 

same general location as the tower previously accessed by Fults’s phone. At 

2:36 p.m., there was an outgoing call from Venegas’s phone to Antar’s 

phone lasting 32 seconds. At 2:40 p.m., there was an incoming call to 

Venegas’s phone from Antar’s phone lasting 38 seconds, which accessed a 

tower about a mile east of the Jewelers Exchange where Antar’s “store” was 

located.

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 39 of

 56
40

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

In light of such substantial evidence, we conclude Antar was properly 

convicted on count 44 under a conspiracy theory. (See Covarrubias, supra, 

1 Cal.5th at p. 890; Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 1135.)

Count 45:

J.Stu. testified that on May 8, 2013, she resided in a home located on 

Helix Street in Spring Valley; that when she came home from work at about 

7:30 p.m., she discovered her bedroom window had been pried open and her 

screen had been cut and removed from the window; that everything inside 

her bedroom had been “tossed” about; that 12 jewelry boxes containing 

jewelry, coins from around the world, and a knife collection, had been taken; 

and that three pillowcases were missing from her pillows. In summer 2013 

and again in early 2014, J.Stu. went to a sheriff’s station and identified items 

taken from her home including a necklace and bracelet; a gold pin; a travel 

bag; an arrowhead she had found while hiking; and some of the jewelry 

boxes – albeit emptied.

Cell phone records for this day showed several calls between the 

phones of Venegas and Antar, including at 1:28 p.m. lasting 37 seconds; at 

1:45 and another at 1:46 p.m., the latter of which lasted 41 seconds; and at 

1:56 p.m. lasting 34 seconds. The call at 1:56 p.m. accessed a cell tower 

located about a quarter-mile from the Jewelers Exchange. At 4:14 p.m., 

Venegas’s phone made an outgoing call to Antar’s phone lasting 25 seconds. 

This call connected to a cell tower about a quarter-mile southwest of the 

Jewelers Exchange.

From the foregoing, we conclude substantial evidence supports 

Antar’s conviction on count 45 under a conspiracy theory. (See 

Covarrubias, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 890; Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 

1135.)

Count 46:

B.C. testified that on May 13, 2013, he was residing at a home located 

on Helix Street in Spring Valley; that when he arrived home after picking up 

his son from school, he saw “tire tracks” across his front lawn and two fruit 

trees knocked down; that when he went to the backyard, he saw the French 

doors to his bedroom open; and that from the outside, he could see the 

contents of his bedroom had been “strewn about.” On investigation, B.C. 

found the gun safe inside his bedroom, which weighed about 400 pounds, 

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 40 of

 56
41

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

had been stolen. Items inside the safe included a rifle; shotgun; a handgun; 

ammunition; personal documents; about 35 silver coins that both he and his 

children – using their birthday money – had collected; photographs; and his 

wife’s jewelry.

About a month after the break-in, B.C. went to a sheriff’s station and 

identified “some loose articles” that had been inside the safe. In January 

2014, B.C.’s wife went to another property viewing and identified a 

“Batman 50th anniversary commemorative” silver coin that also had been 

inside the safe.

Cell phone records for that day showed a call at 11:16 a.m. involving 

Venegas’s phone, which accessed a cell tower about a mile away from the 

B.C. residence. At 3:36 p.m., there was an outgoing call from Venegas’s 

phone to Antar’s phone lasting three minutes 26 seconds.

Based on this evidence, when considered in light of the record as a 

whole, we conclude Antar’s conviction on count 46 was proper under a 

conspiracy theory. (See Covarrubias, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 890; Rodrigues, 

supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 1135.)

Count 47:

S.C. testified that on June 21, 2013, she was residing in a home 

located on Cypress Del Mar in San Diego; that at about 1:45 p.m. that 

afternoon, her alarm company called and informed her that a sensor on the 

front door had been activated; that when she arrived home about 10 minutes 

later, she walked into her living room and saw her laptop lying on the couch, 

which she stated was “impossible”; and that the glass door in the dining 

room was open and the blinds were blowing from the wind. In the kitchen, 

S.C. found a broken window, glass everywhere, and a footprint on the 

countertop.

In the master bedroom, S.C. found all the drawers open, with some 

turned upside down on the ground. Missing from the bedroom were jewelry; 

an iPad; watches including a Rolex taken from a desk; a rifle; antique coins; 

a duffle bag; and cash in different currencies. Like many others victimized 

in the burglary conspiracy, S.C. found a knife had been moved from her 

kitchen onto a table.

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 41 of

 56
42

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Cell phone records from this date showed at 1:29 p.m. Venegas’s 

phone received an incoming call that accessed a cell tower about threequarters of a mile west of the S.C. home. At 3:53 p.m., Venegas’s phone 

received an incoming call that accessed a tower about a quarter-mile west of 

the Jewelers Exchange where, according to his coconspirators, Venegas 

would meet Antar and exchange the loot for money.

In light of this substantial evidence, we conclude Antar’s conviction 

on count 47 was proper under a conspiracy theory. (See Covarrubias, supra, 

1 Cal.5th at p. 890; Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 1135.)

Count 48:

C.B. testified that on July 19, 2013, she lived in a home located on 

Overpark Road in the Carmel Valley area of San Diego; that she left her 

home at about 10:00 a.m. and that when she returned at about 12:00 p.m., a 

police car and her neighbors were waiting outside her home; that after her 

home was secured, she went inside and found entry into the home had been 

made from the back patio through a sliding glass door, which like so many 

other homes that had been burglarized during the conspiracy, had been 

smashed “into tiny little pieces”; and that, also like nearly all of the other 

homes burglarized during the conspiracy, the bedrooms had been 

“ransacked” and everything had been “dumped” on the floor. C.B. also 

found a kitchen knife in her walk-in closet and another knife on a bed in a 

guest bedroom.

C.B. testified that all of her jewelry had been dumped into a shopping 

bag, which she found sitting on the bedroom floor. Although none of her 

jewelry had been stolen, C.B. lost some Canadian coins she kept in the 

office.

Cell phone records for this day showed two outgoing calls from 

Venegas’s phone at 10:14 and 10:21 a.m. Both calls accessed a cell tower 

about three-quarters of a mile from the C.B. residence. At 12:06 p.m., there 

was an incoming call from Antar’s phone to Venegas’s phone lasting 13 

seconds.

Subsequent DNA analysis of a right shoe found down a hill behind the 

C.B. home showed Venegas was included as a possible major contributor 

and was also included as a minor contributor to a right glove that was found 

on a cinderblock wall near the home.

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 42 of

 56
43

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

In light of such evidence, when considered in light of the whole 

record, we conclude Antar’s conviction on count 48 was proper under a 

conspiracy theory. (See Covarrubias, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 890; Morante, 

supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 433; Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 1135.)

Count 49:

As noted, the amended information alleged 157 overt acts that were 

committed in San Diego County in connection with the conspiracy. Based 

on the evidence summarized ante in connection with each of the above 

counts, we conclude there is more than sufficient evidence to show Antar 

and Venegas, along with Duron and/or Fults, “positively or tacitly came to a 

mutual understanding to commit” the crime of first degree residential 

burglary, or attempted residential burglary (see Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th 

at p. 1135), as evidenced through their “conduct, relationship, interests, and 

activities” both before and during the conspiracy (see ibid.).

This same evidence further shows that at least one such individual 

committed at least one (if not all) of the overt acts in furtherance of the 

residential burglary conspiracy. (See Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 1135; 

see also People v. Swain (1996) 12 Cal.4th 593, 600 [noting a conspiracy 

requires two or more persons agreeing to commit a crime, along with the 

commission in California of an overt act by at least one of these persons in 

furtherance of the conspiracy]; § 182, subd. (a)(1).) Thus, we conclude 

Antar’s conviction on count 49 was supported by substantial evidence. (See 

Covarrubias, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 890.)

(Lodgment No. 1, ECF No. 12-1 at 12-70.)

III. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On July 10, 2015, the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office filed an 

Amended Information charging Sami Hanna Antar and three other defendants with fortysix counts of first degree burglary (counts 1-13, 15-21, and 23-48), two counts of 

attempted burglary (counts 14 and 22), and one count of conspiracy to commit residential 

burglary (count 49). (Lodgment No. 9, ECF No. 12-9 at 123-61.) Antar was also 

charged with possession of stolen property (count 50). (Id. at 154.) Following a jury 

trial, the trial court granted a motion made pursuant to Penal Code § 1118.1 and 

dismissed counts 10, 21 and 36. (Lodgment No. 29, ECF No. 12-29 at 121.) Antar was 

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 43 of

 56
44

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

acquitted of count 25 but was convicted of all the remaining counts. (Lodgment No. 10, 

ECF No. 12-9 at 89-93.) He was sentenced to twenty-two years and eight months in 

prison. (Id. at 89.)

Antar appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate 

District. (Lodgment Nos. 5-7, ECF Nos. 12-5 – 12-7.) The state appellate court affirmed 

Antar’s convictions in a 2-1 decision. Justice O’Rourke dissented. (Lodgment No. 1, 

ECF No. 12-1.)

Antar filed a Petition for Review in the California Supreme Court. (Lodgment No. 

2.) The California Supreme Court denied the Petition without citation of authority. 

(Lodgment No. 3, ECF No. 12-3.)

Antar then filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

in this Court on January 18, 2018. (ECF No. 1.) Respondent filed an Answer and 

lodgments on May 17, 2018. (ECF Nos. 11-12.) Antar filed a Traverse on June 18, 

2018. (ECF No. 16.)

IV. DISCUSSION

Antar alleges there was insufficient evidence to convict him of residential burglary, 

attempted residential burglary and conspiracy to commit residential burglary. (Pet., ECF 

No. 1. at 6.) Respondent contends the state court’s denial of the claim was neither 

contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court law. 

(Answer, ECF No. 11.)

A. Standard of Review

This Petition is governed by the provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective 

Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (1997). 

Under AEDPA, a habeas petition will not be granted with respect to any claim 

adjudicated on the merits by the state court unless that adjudication: (1) resulted in a 

decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly 

established federal law; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable 

determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented at the state court proceeding. 

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 44 of

 56
45

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8 (2002). In deciding a state prisoner’s 

habeas petition, a federal court is not called upon to decide whether it agrees with the 

state court’s determination; rather, the court applies an extraordinarily deferential review, 

inquiring only whether the state court’s decision was objectively unreasonable. See

Yarborough v. Gentry, 540 U.S. 1, 4 (2003); Medina v. Hornung, 386 F.3d 872, 877 (9th 

Cir. 2004).

A federal habeas court may grant relief under the “contrary to” clause if the state 

court applied a rule different from the governing law set forth in Supreme Court cases, or 

if it decided a case differently than the Supreme Court on a set of materially 

indistinguishable facts. See Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 694 (2002). The court may grant 

relief under the “unreasonable application” clause if the state court correctly identified 

the governing legal principle from Supreme Court decisions but unreasonably applied 

those decisions to the facts of a particular case. Id. Additionally, the “unreasonable 

application” clause requires that the state court decision be more than incorrect or 

erroneous; to warrant habeas relief, the state court’s application of clearly established 

federal law must be “objectively unreasonable.” See Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75 

(2003). The Court may also grant relief if the state court’s decision was based on an 

unreasonable determination of the facts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). 

Where there is no reasoned decision from the state’s highest court, the Court 

“looks through” to the last reasoned state court decision and presumes it provides the 

basis for the higher court’s denial of a claim or claims. See Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 

797, 805-06 (1991). If the dispositive state court order does not “furnish a basis for its 

reasoning,” federal habeas courts must conduct an independent review of the record to 

determine whether the state court’s decision is contrary to, or an unreasonable application 

of, clearly established Supreme Court law. See Delgado v. Lewis, 223 F.3d 976, 982 (9th 

Cir. 2000) (overruled on other grounds by Andrade, 538 U.S. at 75-76); accord Himes v. 

Thompson, 336 F.3d 848, 853 (9th Cir. 2003). Clearly established federal law, for 

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 45 of

 56
46

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

purposes of § 2254(d), means “the governing principle or principles set forth by the 

Supreme Court at the time the state court renders its decision.” Andrade, 538 U.S. at 72.

B. Analysis

Although Antar never entered any of the burglarized houses, he was convicted of 

forty-two counts of residential burglary and two counts of attempted residential burglary

via a charged conspiracy to commit residential burglary theory. (Lodgment No. 10, ECF 

No. 12-10 at 211-57.) Antar does not contend there was insufficient evidence to establish 

that the homes in question were burglarized by his codefendants or that there was 

insufficient evidence his codefendants conspired to commit those burglaries. Nor does he 

challenge his conviction for possession of stolen property. Rather, Antar contends there 

was insufficient evidence to establish he was either a member of the conspiracy or that he 

aided and abetted the burglaries. (Pet., ECF No. 1 at 6.) Respondent contends the state 

court’s resolution of Antar’s claims are neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable 

application of, clearly established Supreme Court law. (Answer, ECF No. 11-1 at 46-60.)

The Due Process Clause of the Constitution guarantees defendants the right to be 

convicted only upon proof of every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Juan 

H. v. Allen, 408 F.3d 1262, 1274 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 

(1970)). On federal habeas corpus review of a conviction on sufficiency of evidence 

grounds, however, a petitioner “faces a heavy burden” to establish a due process 

violation. Id. In assessing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, a state court must apply 

the standard announced by the Supreme Court in Jackson v. Virginia, “whether, after 

viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of 

fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” 

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) (emphasis in original). While 

circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to support a conviction, “[s]peculation and 

conjecture cannot take the place of reasonable inferences and evidence . . . .” Juan H., 

408 F.3d at 1279; see also Maquiz v. Hedgpeth, 907 F.3d 1212, 1217-18 (9th Cir. 2018); 

United States v. Lewis, 787 F.2d 1318, 1323 (9th Cir. 2000) (“mere suspicion or 

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 46 of

 56
47

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

speculation cannot be the basis for logical inferences”). Moreover, under AEDPA “the 

standards of Jackson are applied ‘with an additional layer of deference,’ requiring the 

federal court to determine ‘whether the decision of the [state court] reflected an 

“unreasonable application of” Jackson . . . to the facts of this case.’” Maquiz, 2018 WL 

5780729 at *4 (internal citations omitted). A federal habeas court must “mindful of ‘the 

deference owed to the trier of fact and, correspondingly, the sharply limited nature of 

constitutional sufficiency review.’” Juan H., 408 F.3d at 1274 (quoting Wright v. West, 

505 U.S. 277, 296-97 (1992)). Deference under AEDPA, however, “does not imply 

abandonment or abdication of judicial review.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 340 

(2003).

In determining whether sufficient evidence has been presented, the Court refers to 

the elements of the crime as defined by state law. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 324, n. 16; 

Juan H., 408 F.3d at 1276. In the present case, because the state appellate court found 

there was substantial evidence presented at trial establishing Antar’s membership in a 

conspiracy to commit residential burglary, and that he was therefore guilty of all the 

burglary counts, the Court will first address the sufficiency of evidence for the conspiracy 

conviction.

1. Sufficiency of Evidence of Conspiracy to Commit Burglary

Both parties agree that under California law, “[a] conviction of conspiracy requires 

proof that the defendant and another person had the specific intent to agree or conspire to 

commit an offense, as well as the specific intent to commit the elements of that offense, 

together with proof of the commission of an overt act ‘by one or more of the parties to 

such agreement’ in furtherance of the conspiracy.” People v. Morante, 20 Cal. 4th 403, 

416 (1999); People v. Vega-Robles, 9 Cal. App. 5th 382, 420 (2017). “Conspiracy is a 

specific intent crime requiring both an intent to agree or conspire and a further intent to 

commit the target crime or object of the conspiracy. It is a dual mental state.” People v. 

Iniguez, 96 Cal. App. 4th 75, 78 (2002) (footnote omitted). A defendant need not, 

however, intend to commit the target crime himself. Rather, he must intend that one or 

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 47 of

 56
48

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

more of the members of the conspiracy commit the target crime. CALCRIM No. 415. In 

this case, the target crime was residential burglary. A person commits the crime of 

residential burglary when he or she enters a house with the intent to commit a theft or 

felony. Cal. Penal Code § 459 (West 2018). 

“To prove an agreement, it is not necessary to establish the parties met and 

expressly agreed [to commit the target offense].” People v. Vu, 143 Cal. App. 4th 1009, 

1025 (2006). “The evidence is sufficient if it supports an inference that the parties 

positively or tacitly came to a mutual understanding to commit a crime.” People v. 

Prevost, 60 Cal. App. 4th 1382, 1399 (1998). The existence of a conspiracy “may be 

proved through circumstantial evidence inferred from the conduct, relationship, interests, 

and activities of the alleged conspirators before and during the alleged conspiracy.” Id. 

“It is settled that mere association and suspicion of criminal conduct is not enough 

to establish a conspiracy or even an agreement; there must be some evidence to 

demonstrate that the association is also a conspiracy.” People v. Tran, 215 Cal. App. 4th 

1207, 1221 (2013). Neither “knowing that a person’s products or services are being used 

for a criminal purpose,” People v. Powers-Monachello, 189 Cal. App. 4th 400, 419 

(2010), nor “a defendant’s mere acceptance of the benefits of a criminal activity after it 

has occurred,” People v. Hardeman, 244 Cal. App. 2d 1, 52-52 (1966), is sufficient by 

itself to establish a defendant’s participation in a conspiracy. However, “[w]here there is 

some evidence that a person participated in committing the target offense or had an 

interest in its commission, such evidence together with evidence of association can be 

sufficient to support an inference of a conspiracy to commit that offense.” Tran, 215 Cal. 

App. 4th at 1221-22; Prevost, 60 Cal. App. 4th at 1400, quoting People v. Hardeman, 

244 Cal. App. 2d 1, 41 (1966).

This Court is required to determine whether the state appellate court’s decision 

affirming Antar’s conviction was an unreasonable application of Jackson, that is, whether 

the state court unreasonably determined that, viewing the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the prosecution, and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from this 

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 48 of

 56
49

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

evidence, “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime 

beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319. In other words, to survive a due 

process challenge, the record of conviction must support the state court’s determination 

that sufficient evidence was presented to allow any reasonable fact finder to conclude 

that: (1) Antar had the specific intent to agree and did agree to commit residential 

burglary, (2) Antar had the specific intent to commit the residential burglary himself or 

the specific intent that a member of the conspiracy commit burglary; and (3) an overt act 

in furtherance of the conspiracy was committed by one or more of the members of the 

conspiracy. Id.; Morante, 20 Cal. 4th at 416; CALCRIM No. 415

The prosecution presented both direct and circumstantial evidence sufficient to 

establish Venegas, Duron and Fults were in a conspiracy to commit residential burglary, 

that is, they “had the specific intent to agree or conspire to commit [residential 

burglaries], as well as the specific intent to [enter each of the homes with the intent to 

steal property],” and that one or more of them committed an overt act in furtherance of 

the conspiracy. Vega-Robles, 9 Cal. App. 5th at 420. Montes testified Duron approached 

him in mid-August of 2012 and asked Montes drive Duron and Venegas around so they 

could scout houses for residential burglaries. (Lodgment No. 16, ECF No. 12-16 at 59.) 

Montes drove Venegas and Duron to various houses which they burglarized and shared in 

some of the proceeds of the burglaries. (Id. 75-98.) At trial, Montes identified some of 

the houses he helped burglarize as well as various items that were stolen from those 

houses. (Id.) Near the end of August 2012, Montes was stopped by police and his car 

was searched. Jewelry from some of the burglaries and a pawn receipt for some stolen 

jewelry were found in his car. (Id. at 99-101.) He was arrested in April of 2013 and later 

began cooperating with police. (Id. at 105-06.)

Aguirre testified about the residential burglaries she participated in with Venegas, 

Montes and Duron beginning in July of 2012 and continuing until her arrest in November 

of that year. (Lodgment No. 25, ECF No. 12-25 at 124-88.) Aguirre acted as a driver 

and a lookout; she also entered at least one of the houses and stole items from it. (Id.) 

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 49 of

 56
50

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

She identified many of the houses she helped burglarize as well as items that were taken 

from the homes. (Id.) She also testified she and Venegas would communicate via text 

and cell phone during the burglaries about which doors she should knock on to determine 

whether anyone was home, where she was parked and at least once to ask why he was 

taking so long inside a house. (Lodgment No. 26, ECF No. 12-26 at 15.)

Having established there was a conspiracy to commit residential burglary among 

Venegas, Duron and Fults, the prosecution sought to tie Antar to it. District Attorney 

Investigator Don Holmes testified regarding the cell phone evidence. The records 

showed calls between Venegas’s phone and Antar’s phone, many of which were made 

before and/or after each burglary. (Lodgment No. 23, ECF No. 12-23 at 157-96, ECF 

No. 12-24 at 8-86; ECF No. 12-25 at 26-113.) The cell phone evidence also showed that 

Venegas’s phone was downtown near Antar’s shop after many of the burglaries. (Id.) In 

addition, jewelry from some of the burglaries was found at Antar’s shop and photos of 

some of the stolen jewelry was found on Antar’s computer. (Lodgment No. 19, ECF No. 

12-19 at 111-26; Lodgment No. 20, ECF No. 12-20 at 95-101; Lodgment No. 21, ECF 

No. 12-21 at 81-85, 111-12; Lodgment No. 22, ECF No. 12-22 at 96-97; Lodgment No. 

23, ECF No. 12-23 at 128-29; Lodgment No. 25, ECF No. 12-25 at Lodgment No. 28, 

ECF No. 12-28 at 86-98, 121-48, 135, 174-75.) The photos were taken on the same dates 

as the burglary of the home from which the jewelry was taken. (Id.) Police also found 

evidence of searches conducted on Antar’s computer regarding the value of the same 

kind of electronics stolen during the burglaries. (Lodgment No. 27, ECF No. 12-27 at 

179-84; Lodgment No. 28, ECF No. 12-28 at 135.) In addition, testimony from Montes 

and Aguirre established that after the burglaries they participated in, Venegas texted or 

called Antar, they would drive downtown to Antar’s shop, Venegas would enter the 

building where Antar’s shop was located and return with cash. (Lodgment No. 16, ECF 

No. 12-16 at 77-82; Lodgment No. 25, ECF No. 12-25 at 131, 139-42.) Finally, Aguirre

testified that she, Venegas, and Duron drove a car stolen during one of the burglaries to 

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 50 of

 56
51

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Antar’s home where Venegas and Duron talked to each other about stripping the car and 

selling the parts to Antar. (Lodgment No. 25, ECF No. 12-25 at 169-71.)

As discussed above, there is no question that Venegas, Duron and Fults 

specifically intended to agree to commit residential burglary, specifically intended that 

one or more of them commit residential burglary, and that one of them committed an 

overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. The issue presented to this Court is whether,

resolving all reasonable inferences in favor of the prosecution, any rational trier of fact 

could have concluded on this record that Antar specifically intended to agree to commit 

residential burglaries with Venegas and/or other people and that he specifically intended 

that one or more members of the conspiracy commit residential burglary. Inferences 

made from the facts must be not only reasonable but must be supported by evidence in 

the record. See Walters, 45 F.3d at 1358. 

The crime of conspiracy fixes the point of criminal liability at the point of 

agreement, not the point of the commission of the target crime. People v. Swain, 12 Cal.

4th 593, 600 (1996). “A conspiracy is not necessarily a single event which unalterably 

takes place at a particular point in time when the participants reach a formal agreement; it 

may be flexible, occurring over a period of time and changing in response to changed 

circumstances.” People v. Vargas, 91 Cal. App. 4th 506, 555 (2001) quoting People v. 

Jones, 180 Cal. App. 3d 509, 517 (1986). Here, the direct and circumstantial evidence 

presented at trial, and the reasonable inferences that could be drawn from that evidence, 

was sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Antar entered into a 

conspiracy, the object of which was for Venegas and his crew to commit residential 

burglaries and for Antar to fence the proceeds from those burglaries. As noted above, 

“[t]he existence of a conspiracy “may be proved through circumstantial evidence inferred 

from the conduct, relationship, interests, and activities of the alleged conspirators before 

and during the alleged conspiracy.” Prevost, 60 Cal. App. 4th at 1399. Antar’s conduct 

of repeatedly communicating with Venegas by phone while Venegas was in close 

proximity to the location of the burglaries and close in time to when the burglaries were 

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 51 of

 56
52

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

committed, as well as Venegas’s repeated visits to Antar’s business to pawn the proceeds 

of the burglaries could lead a rational juror to conclude that Antar had agreed conspired 

with Venegas for Venegas and his crew to commit residential burglaries and for Antar to 

fence the stolen property. In addition, the presence of photographs of the stolen property 

on Antar’s computer and evidence of computer searches regarding the value of some of 

the stolen property could lead a reasonable juror to conclude that Antar was a knowing 

and willing participant in the conspiracy. The nature of the goods Venegas brought to 

Antar’s business for him to fence – personal pieces of jewelry, sports memorabilia, coins, 

electronics, etc. – could lead a rational juror to conclude that Antar knew or should have 

known the goods Venegas brought him to pawn were stolen property obtained from 

committing residential burglaries. Moreover, Antar’s willingness to act as a fence for 

Venegas for a lengthy period of time could lead a rational juror to conclude that Antar 

and Venegas had an ongoing relationship with a mutual interest in Venegas committing 

residential burglaries so both could profit. Given Antar’s willingness to fence goods he 

knew or should have known were stolen and the financial benefit Antar enjoyed as a 

result of Venegas’s criminal activity, a rational juror could conclude that Antar intended 

to conspire with Venegas, Duron and Fults to commit residential burglaries and that he 

intended that Venegas and crew continue to commit residential burglaries in order to 

profit from them. See Prevost, 60 Cal. App. 4th 1382, 1399 (1998); see also Tran, 215 

Cal. App. 4th at 1221-22 (“[w]here there is some evidence that a person participated in 

committing the target offense or had an interest in its commission, such evidence together 

with evidence of association can be sufficient to support an inference of a conspiracy to 

commit that offense”).

Applying the doubly deferential review required by AEDPA, the Court concludes 

that state appellate court’s determination there was substantial evidence to support the 

jury’s conclusion that Antar was guilty of conspiracy to commit burglary and burglary 

was not an unreasonable application of Jackson. Nor was it based on an unreasonable 

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 52 of

 56
53

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

determination of the facts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). Accordingly he is not entitled to 

relief. Yarborough, 540 U.S. at 4.

2. Aiding and Abetting

Because the state appellate court concluded there was sufficient evidence to 

convict Antar of residential burglary as a conspirator, it did not address Antar’s claim that 

the evidence was insufficient to convict him of residential burglary under an aiding and 

abetting theory. (Lodgment No. 1, 12-1 at 9.) This Court must therefore review the 

claim de novo. Pirtle v. Morgan, 313 F.3d 1160, 1167 (9th Cir. 2003) (where there is no 

state court decision on a claim to which the federal court can defer, the Court must 

conduct a de novo review of the claim). 

The California Supreme Court has stated that “a person aids and abets the 

commission of a crime when he or she, acting with (1) knowledge of the unlawful 

purpose of the perpetrator, and (2) the intent or purpose of committing, encouraging, or 

facilitating the commission of the offense, (3) by act or advice aids, promotes, encourages 

or instigates, the commission of the crime.” People v. Beeman, 35 Cal.3d 547, 561 

(1984); CALCRIM No. 401. To prove a defendant aided and abetted a crime, the 

prosecution must establish the following:

(a) the direct perpetrator’s actus reus – a crime committed by the direct 

perpetrator, (b) the aider and abettor’s mens rea – knowledge of the direct 

perpetrator’s unlawful intent and an intent to assist in achieving those 

unlawful ends, and (c) the aider and abettor’s actus reus – conduct by the 

aider and abettor that in fact assists the achievement of the crime.

In re J.R., 22 Cal. App. 5th 805, 814 (2018).

California courts have held that in order to impose liability on a defendant for 

aiding and abetting a crime, “the defendant’s intent to encourage or facilitate the actions 

of the perpetrator ‘must be formed prior to or during “commission” of that offense.’” 

People v. Joiner, 84 Cal. App. 4th 946, 967 (2000) (quoting People v. Montoya, 7 Cal.

4th 1027, 1039 (1994) (emphasis in original)). “[F]or the purpose of assessing the 

liability of an aider and abettor, a burglary is considered ongoing during the time the 

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 53 of

 56
54

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

perpetrator remains inside the structure . . . .” Montoya, 7 Cal. 4th at 1045. However, 

“the mere knowledge or belief that a crime is being committed or likely to be committed, 

and the failure on the part of one having such knowledge or belief to take some steps to 

prevent it, in no sense amounts to aiding and abetting.” People v. Weber, 84 Cal. App. 2d 

126, 130 (1948). California courts have discussed the distinction between aiding and 

abetting and other, lesser crimes:

[I]t is essential to distinguish the act and intent that constitute “aiding and 

abetting” the commission of a crime, from conduct that will incur the lesser 

liability of an “accessory” to the crime – defined as conduct by one who 

“after a felon has been committed . . . aids a principal in such felony . . . .” 

(Ibid.) In this respect, not only must the subjective intent to encourage or 

facilitate the actions of the perpetrator be formed prior to or during the 

commission of the offense, if there is no participation in the planning, the 

aider and abettor must take affirmative action at the time the offense is 

committed. (1 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (2d ed. 1988) 

Introduction to crimes, § 83, pp. 98-99.) “To be an abettor the accused must 

have instigated or advised the commission of the crime or been present for 

the purpose of assisting in its commission.” (People v. Villa (1957) 156 Cal. 

App.2d 128, 133-134, 318 P.2d 828.) 

Joiner, 84 Cal. App. 4th at 967 (emphasis in original).

As discussed above in section IV(B)(1), there was sufficient evidence to establish 

the direct perpetrators, Venegas, Fults and Duron, committed the crime of burglary. The 

question the Court must answer is whether sufficient evidence was presented to establish 

that Antar knew Venegas, Fults and Duron intended to commit burglary, that he intended 

to “assist in achieving those ends,” and that he committed an act that helped Venegas, 

Fults and Duron to commit burglary. See In re J.R., 22 Cal. App. 5th at 814.

Although there was circumstantial evidence suggesting Antar knew or should have 

known the jewelry he was obtaining from Venegas was stolen, for the reasons discussed 

above the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support a reasonable inference 

that Antar intended to commit, encourage or facilitate the burglaries themselves or that he 

did anything to help Venegas and his crew commit the burglaries. As discussed above, 

no evidence, direct or circumstantial, was presented regarding what Venegas and Antar 

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 54 of

 56
55

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

discussed, either during the phone calls or when Venegas went to Antar’s shop to pawn 

stolen items. There was no evidence, direct or circumstantial, Antar knew where 

Venegas was or what he was doing during the phone calls, whether or how the property 

was stolen, and from where it was stolen. There was no evidence presented, direct or 

circumstantial, that Antar did anything that advanced or facilitated the burglaries or that 

established Antar intended to advance or facilitate them. Thus, no logical or reasonable 

inference could be drawn that Antar aided and abetted the burglaries, and any such 

conclusion would be based upon “mere suspicion,” “[s]peculation and conjecture.” Juan 

H., 408 F.3d at 1279; Lewis, 787 F.2d at 1323. 

An argument could be made that Antar intended to encourage or facilitate the 

burglaries and promoted or encouraged them by acting as a fence for Venegas. But no 

evidence was presented that Antar participated in the planning of the burglaries and thus 

under California law, the prosecution was obliged to establish that Antar “[took] 

affirmative action at the time the offense [was] committed.” Joiner, 84 Cal. App. 4th at 

967. As previously noted, “a burglary is considered ongoing during the time the 

perpetrator remains inside the structure . . . .” Montoya, 7 Cal. 4th at 1045. The only 

evidence presented showing that Antar did anything while the burglaries were in progress 

was phone calls between him and Venegas. The prosecution did not establish, however, 

that the phone calls occurred during the commission of the burglaries, nor did it establish 

with either direct or circumstantial evidence the content of the conversations between 

Antar and Venegas. Thus, Antar’s act of fencing the stolen property after the burglaries 

were complete cannot form the basis for aiding and abetting liability under California 

law. Accordingly, the evidence was insufficient to support Antar’s conviction for 

residential burglary as an aider and abettor. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 310

V. CONCLUSION

The Court submits this Report and Recommendation to United States District 

Judge Cynthia A. Bashant under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule HC.2 of the 

United States District Court for the Southern District of California. 

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 55 of

 56
56

18cv0118 BAS (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Court issue an order: (1) approving 

and adopting this Report and Recommendation, and (2) directing that Judgment be 

entered DENYING the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

IT IS ORDERED that no later than January 7, 2019 any party to this action may 

file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document 

should be captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be filed with 

the Court and served on all parties no later than January 21, 2019. The parties are 

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

raise those objections on appeal of the Court’s order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 

449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-00118-BAS-BGS Document 17 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 56 of

 56