Filed 10/2/13 P. v. Guevara CA5 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

BONNIE ELIZABETH GUEVARA, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

F065010 

(Tuolumne Super. Ct. 

No. CRF36992) 

OPINION

THE COURT* 

 APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County. James A. 

Boscoe, Judge. 

 Susan K. Shaler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant. 

 Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney 

General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen A. McKenna and 

Amanda D. Cary, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

-ooOoo- 

 * Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Peña, J. 
2. 

INTRODUCTION

 Appellant/defendant Bonnie Elizabeth Guevara (defendant) was arrested after she 

entered a department store, placed merchandise in bags, handed the bags to two 

companions, and they returned the merchandise for store credit. Defendant was charged 

and convicted of count I, conspiracy to commit commercial burglary (Pen. Code,1

§§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 459); count II, second degree commercial burglary (§ 459); and 

count III, petty theft with 10 prior theft-related offenses (§§ 484, 666). She was 

sentenced to three years in prison. 

 On appeal, defendant argues the court did not properly instruct the jury on the 

elements of conspiracy to commit commercial burglary; the court failed to properly 

respond to the jury’s questions about conspiracy; and her attorney was prejudicially 

ineffective for failing to object to the court’s alleged errors and request supplemental 

instructions on that count. Her arguments are based on the assertion that the jury was 

never instructed that defendant could only be convicted of conspiracy if defendant and 

her confederates agreed to commit commercial burglary before they entered the 

department store. As we will explain, the entirety of the instructions demonstrates the 

jury was repeatedly instructed on that precise point. Defendant also challenges the 

court’s calculation of the restitution fine. We affirm. 

FACTS

 On July 11, 2011, defendant entered Kohl’s department store in Sonora. Staci 

Ferguson, a loss prevention officer for the store, noticed that defendant was carrying a 

Kohl’s shopping bag. Defendant took a shopping cart, walked past the customer service 

desk, and went to the back of the store. 

 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 
3. 

Ferguson became concerned because defendant did not take the shopping bag to 

customer service and produce any merchandise for a return. Ferguson was also 

concerned since defendant was using a Kohl’s shopping bag which had an older design. 

Ferguson went into her office and watched defendant on the store’s surveillance 

camera. Defendant selected several items of merchandise without regard to price or size. 

She draped these items over the front of the shopping cart, and then headed toward the 

fitting rooms. Ferguson contacted the fitting room associate to remove all merchandise 

out of the stalls before defendant entered any of the fitting rooms. 

Ferguson returned to the sales floor and went to the fitting room area. Defendant 

arrived at the fitting rooms, entered a stall, and was the only customer. Ferguson heard 

the sound of a shopping bag rustling inside defendant’s stall. After seven or eight 

minutes, defendant walked out of the stall and handed some merchandise to Ferguson, 

indicating she was not going to select the items. Ferguson looked into defendant’s cart 

and saw two Kohl’s shopping bags. Ferguson checked the stall, and defendant had not 

left anything behind. 

 Defendant left the fitting room and met a woman in the store. She was later 

identified as codefendant Traci Wood, a friend of defendant. Another store employee 

advised Ferguson that defendant and Wood were walking together. Ferguson also saw a 

man walking with defendant and Wood. He was later identified as codefendant Matthew 

Guevara (Matthew), defendant’s adult son.2

At one point while she was in the store, defendant went into the bedding 

department. Ferguson testified that defendant selected expensive brands of sheets and 

pillowcases. 

 2 Given the similarity in last names, we will refer to codefendant Matthew 

Guevara as “Matthew” to avoid confusion; no disrespect is intended. According to the 

probation report, defendant was 60 years old and Matthew was 34 years old at the time of 

the trial. 
4. 

Defendant and Wood walked along the store’s back wall, where it was hard to 

watch them. Ferguson saw defendant hand a Kohl’s shopping bag to Matthew. The bag 

contained a set of sheets and two sets of pillowcases. Matthew handed the bag to Wood. 

 Wood took the bag to customer service and asked to return the sheets and 

pillowcases even though she did not have a receipt. Matthew was standing with her at 

the counter. Kohl’s allows customers to return items without a receipt and receive store 

credit, if they provide a driver’s license for identification. Wood presented her driver’s 

license. The retail value of the merchandise was $349.97. However, Wood only received 

a store credit for $187.66, based on the sales price of the merchandise on that day. 

 As Matthew and Wood left the return counter, Ferguson approached them and 

identified herself as a store security officer. She asked to speak to them about the return. 

 Ferguson believed Matthew and Wood had been on their way to meet defendant. 

She also believed defendant saw her speak to Matthew and Wood. As Ferguson spoke to 

them, defendant walked through the store, took items out of her shopping cart, and placed 

them back on the shelves. Defendant went to the juniors department, took a Kohl’s 

shopping bag full of merchandise out of her cart, and slid it under a store fixture. 

Defendant walked out of the store and went to her vehicle. Defendant had been in 

the store for over one hour, and she never made any purchases. 

The investigation

 Ferguson spoke to Matthew and Wood while they were still in the store and asked 

about the return of the sheets and pillowcases. Matthew said they received the items as 

gifts. After a few seconds, Wood said defendant pressured her into performing the 

fraudulent return, and they had performed the same transaction before. Wood said 

defendant picked up the merchandise from the sales floor and passed it to her. 

 Deputies from the Tuolumne County Sheriff’s Department responded to the store. 

A deputy asked Matthew about the fraudulent return of the sheets. Matthew said he did 

not know anything. 
5. 

 The deputies contacted defendant outside the building. Defendant said she had 

driven from Tracy to Sonora to go to the casino with Matthew and Wood. Defendant 

said Wood had received linen as gifts and decided to exchange the merchandise at 

Kohl’s. Defendant had some Kohl’s bags in a cart. There were some T-shirts in one of 

the bags, with Kohl’s price tags on them. Defendant said she had purchased the shirts at 

another Kohl’s store, and she was going to return them. Defendant did not have a receipt 

for the shirts. 

On further questioning, defendant said she took some sheets, placed them in the 

Kohl’s shopping bag and cart, gave the bag to Matthew and Wood, and told them to 

return the items. Defendant knew Kohl’s allowed returns without receipts for store 

credit. 

DEFENSE EVIDENCE

Wood testified they drove to the casino in Sonora, then stopped at the store so 

defendant could return previously purchased merchandise. Wood testified they did not 

have any prearranged plan to take merchandise and return it for store credit, or commit 

any type of theft. 

 Wood testified that defendant went into the store, and Wood and Matthew went in 

later. Defendant gave a shopping bag with sheets to Wood and asked her to “take them 

back.” Wood assumed defendant meant for her to return the items for store credit, but 

defendant never explained what she meant. Wood knew defendant had brought some 

items into the store in the shopping bag, but she did not know the contents of the bag. 

Wood testified that when she was later detained in the store’s security office, she 

saw defendant on the surveillance monitor as she placed items back onto the shelves. 

Wood suddenly realized that defendant had asked her to return the sheets to the shelves 

instead of getting store credit. 

 On cross-examination, Wood denied making statements attributed to her—that 

defendant told her to return the items without a receipt, defendant did not have the sheets 
6. 

before she entered the store, or that defendant pressured her into returning the items and 

she had done it before. Wood said she lied to Ferguson about the sheets being a gift, 

because she did not want to get defendant into trouble. 

In rebuttal, Deputy Brouillette testified about Wood’s prior statements. Wood said 

she entered the store with defendant and Matthew. They walked around different areas of 

the store and then met defendant. Defendant gave a shopping bag to Wood and Matthew 

and told them to return the items without a receipt. Wood said defendant did not have the 

sheets before she went into the store. Wood admitted she knew she was returning stolen 

property. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 Defendant and codefendants Matthew and Wood were charged with count I, 

conspiracy to commit commercial burglary and count II, second degree commercial 

burglary. Defendant and Matthew were separately charged with count III, petty theft 

with prior theft-related offenses, with the allegations that defendant had 10 prior theftrelated convictions, and Matthew had five prior theft-related convictions. Defendant 

pleaded not guilty. 

 Wood pleaded guilty to conspiracy and second degree burglary. Defendant and 

Matthew were tried together before a jury, and Wood testified for the defense. 

The instructions3

 As to count I, the court instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 415, as follows: 

“I’ve explained that[] a defendant may be guilty of a crime if he or 

she either [commits] the crime or aids and abets the crime. He or she may 

also be guilty if he or she is a member of a conspiracy. 

 3 We must review the instructions at length because, as we will discuss in section 

I, post, defendant asserts the jury was never instructed that she could not be convicted of 

conspiracy unless defendant and her confederates agreed to commit commercial burglary 

before they entered the store. 
7. 

“The defendants are charged in Count I with conspiracy to commit 

commercial burglary .... To prove a defendant is guilty of this crime, the 

People must prove that, number one, the defendant intended to agree and 

did agree with one or more of the other defendants to commit commercial 

burglary; number two, at the time of the agreement, the defendant and one 

or more members of the alleged conspiracy intended that one or more of 

them would commit commercial burglary; number three, one ... of the 

defendants or all of them committed at least one of the following alleged 

overt act[s] to accomplish commercial burglary: 

 “Overt act number one, drove a vehicle to Kohl’s; overt act number 

two, entered Kohl’s with empty Kohl’s shopping bags; number three, overt 

act number three, selected items in Kohl’s and concealed them in bags; 

overt act four, returned items that were not paid for without a receipt and 

obtained store credit; number five..., at least one of these acts was 

committed in California. 

“To decide whether a defendant committed all of these acts, consider 

all of the evidence presented about the acts. To decide whether the 

defendant and one or more of the alleged members of the conspiracy 

intended to commit commercial burglary, please refer to the separate 

instruction that I will give you on that crime. 

“The People must prove that the members of the alleged conspiracy 

had an agreement and intent to commit commercial burglary. The People 

do not have to prove that any of the members of the alleged conspiracy 

actually met or came to a detailed or formal agreement to commit that 

crime. An agreement may be inferred from conduct if you conclude that 

members of the alleged conspiracy acted with a common purpose to 

commit the crime.” (Italics added.) 

As to count II, commercial burglary, the court gave CALCRIM No. 1700: 

“The defendants ... are charged in Count II with commercial 

burglary .... 

“To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the people must 

prove that, number one, the defendant entered a commercial building; and 

number two, when he or she entered a commercial building, he or she 

intended to commit theft. [¶] ... [¶] 

 “A burglary is committed if the defendant entered with the intent to 

commit theft. The defendant does not ... need to have actually committed 

theft as long as he or she entered with the intent to do [so].... 
8. 

“The People alleged that the defendants intended to commit theft. 

You may not find any defendant guilty of burglary unless all of you agree 

he or she intended to commit that crime at the time of the entry.” (Italics 

added.) 

The jury’s questions

 During deliberations, the jury sent a note to the court which contained three 

questions. The instant record does not contain any discussions between the court and the 

parties as to the potential responses to these questions. 

The court brought the jurors into the courtroom and addressed their first 

question—a request to hear a certain portion of Staci Ferguson’s questions. The court 

stated it would provide that information to the jury. 

The court then turned to the jury’s second and third questions, which addressed the 

conspiracy and burglary charges: 

“The second question, Could you explain conspiracy, in that does 

the act have to be planned before entering the store? 

“Third question is, A note we had was conspiracy can be an 

agreement from conduct. Could we get clarification regarding this phrase? 

“Well, ladies and gentlemen, those last two questions are dealt with 

in the instructions number 415, which defines conspiracy. And you are 

going to have to rely on the words of that instruction to reach conclusions 

as to those two questions. And I think the answers—I think your questions 

will be answered it you reread instruction No. 415, which it doesn’t have 

the caption on it, but it’s the definition of conspiracy and the elements 

necessary to complete that crime.” (Italics added.) 

None of the parties objected to the court’s responses to the jury’s questions about 

conspiracy. The jury did not ask any further questions. 

Verdict and sentence

Defendant and Matthew were convicted of the three counts as charged. Defendant 

admitted the 10 alleged prior convictions. Matthew admitted two prior convictions, and 

the court dismissed duplicative allegations. 
9. 

 Defendant was sentenced to the upper term of three years for count III; the court 

stayed the terms imposed for counts I and II. The instant record is silent as to Matthew’s 

sentence. 

DISCUSSION

I. Conspiracy instructions

 Defendant argues the court failed to correctly instruct the jury on the elements of 

count I, conspiracy to commit commercial burglary. Defendant asserts that CALCRIM 

No. 415 failed to clarify when the parties had to enter into a conspiracy, and that the 

conspiracy had to occur before the parties entered the store. Defendant asserts the 

instruction error was exacerbated by the court’s alleged failure to comply with its legal 

duty to respond to the jury’s questions about the timing of a conspiracy, and offer 

supplemental instructions to clarify the point. 

 We note that defendant did not object to the court’s instructions on conspiracy or 

its responses to the jury’s questions. Defendant asserts that objections were not necessary 

since the alleged instruction errors affected her substantial rights. (§ 1259; People v. 

Franco (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 713, 719-720.) 

In the alternative, defendant argues her attorney was prejudicially ineffective for 

failing to object to the conspiracy instructions, object to the court’s responses to the 

jury’s questions, and request supplemental instructions on those points. Defendant 

argues the alleged errors were prejudicial since the evidence showed that defendant, 

Matthew, and Wood separately entered the store and were not acting together, but the 

instructions allowed the jury to convict defendant based on the conclusion that the 

conspiracy occurred after they entered the store. 

We thus proceed to the merits of defendant’s arguments. 

A. Review of jury instructions

 “It is well established in California that the correctness of jury instructions is to be 

determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of an 
10. 

instruction or from a particular instruction. [Citations.] ‘[T]he fact that the necessary 

elements of a jury charge are to be found in two instructions rather than in one instruction 

does not, in itself, make the charge prejudicial.’ [Citation.] ‘The absence of an essential 

element in one instruction may be supplied by another or cured in light of the instructions 

as a whole.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505, 538-539, 

disapproved on other grounds in People v. Reyes (1998) 19 Cal.4th 743, 746.) We may 

not judge a single jury instruction in artificial isolation, but must view it in the context of 

the charge and the entire trial record. (People v. Haskett (1990) 52 Cal.3d 210, 235.) 

 “An appellate court cannot set aside a judgment on the basis of instructional error 

unless, after an examination of the entire record, the court concludes that the error has 

resulted in a miscarriage of justice. [Citation.] A miscarriage of justice occurs only 

when it is reasonably probable that the jury would have reached a result more favorable 

to the appellant absent the error. [Citations.]” (People v. Moore (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 

1323, 1331.) 

B. The jury was correctly instructed

 Based on these well-settled legal principles, we find the court correctly instructed 

the jury on conspiracy to commit commercial burglary. First, there is no dispute that the 

conspiracy to commit commercial burglary must have been formed before defendant and 

her codefendants entered the department store. “The necessary elements of a criminal 

conspiracy are: (1) an agreement between two or more persons; (2) with the specific 

intent to agree to commit a public offense; (3) with the further specific intent to commit 

that offense; and (4) an overt act committed by one or more of the parties for the purpose 

of accomplishing the object of the agreement or conspiracy. [Citations.]” (People v. Liu

(1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1128.) “From the very nature of the stealth generally 

involved in the crime of conspiracy, it is not necessary to prove that the parties came 

together and reached a formal agreement [citation].” (People v. Massey (1957) 151 
11. 

Cal.App.2d 623, 652.) Conspiracies are almost always proven by circumstantial 

evidence. (Ibid.) 

 “Burglary is defined as the entry of a structure with the intent to commit theft or 

any felony. [Citation.] Proof of intent is rarely susceptible of direct proof and may be 

inferred from the circumstances of the case. [Citation.]” (People v. Moody (1976) 59 

Cal.App.3d 357, 363.) 

 Second, the entirety of the instructions clearly demonstrates the jury was 

repeatedly and correctly instructed on these precise points. In CALCRIM No. 415 on 

conspiracy, the jury was instructed that the People had to prove as one of the elements 

that “the defendant intended to agree and did agree with one or more of the other 

defendants to commit commercial burglary.” This instruction defined two of the overt 

acts as involving conduct which occurred before they entered the building—driving to the 

store and entering with empty shopping bags. 

 Most importantly, CALCRIM No. 415 instructed the jury that the People had to 

prove “the members of the alleged conspiracy had an agreement and intent to commit 

commercial burglary,” and that “[t]o decide whether the defendant and one or more of the 

alleged members of the conspiracy intended to commit commercial burglary, please refer 

to the separate instruction that I will give you on that crime.” 

The conspiracy instruction expressly directed the jury to the instruction on 

commercial burglary to determine the elements of conspiracy. CALCRIM No .1700 on 

commercial burglary clearly stated: “To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, 

the people must prove that, number one, the defendant entered a commercial building; 

and number two, when he or she entered a commercial building, he or she intended to 

commit theft.” It also stated that a burglary is committed “if the defendant entered with 

the intent to commit theft. The defendant does not ... need to have actually committed 

theft as long as he or she entered with the intent to do [so].... [¶] ... You may not find 
12. 

any defendant guilty of burglary unless all of you agree he or she intended to commit that 

crime at the time of the entry.” (Italics added.) 

The jury was thus repeatedly and correctly instructed that a conspiracy to commit 

commercial burglary had to exist before defendant entered the store. The instructions 

were not erroneous. 

C. The court’s duty to respond to jury questions

Defendant further argues the court abused its discretion when it failed to clarify 

the conspiracy instructions in response to the jury’s two questions about that count. We 

again note defendant failed to object to the court’s responses, but address the issue given 

her alternate ineffective assistance claim. 

Defendant’s argument is based on section 1138, which provides in relevant part: 

“After the jury have retired for deliberation,... if they desire to be informed on any point 

of law arising in the case, they must require the officer to conduct them into court. Upon 

being brought into court, the information required must be given in the presence of, or 

after notice to, the prosecuting attorney, and the defendant or his counsel, or after they 

have been called.” (§ 1138.) 

“The court has a primary duty to help the jury understand the legal principles it is 

asked to apply. [Citation.] This does not mean the court must always elaborate on the 

standard instructions. Where the original instructions are themselves full and complete, 

the court has discretion under section 1138 to determine what additional explanations are 

sufficient to satisfy the jury’s request for information. [Citation.] Indeed, comments 

diverging from the standard are often risky. [Citation.]” (People v. Beardslee (1991) 53 

Cal.3d 68, 97.) 

 “Jury questions can present a court with particularly vexing challenges. The 

urgency to respond with alacrity must be weighed against the need for precision in 

drafting replies that are accurate, responsive, and balanced. When a question shows the 

jury has focused on a particular issue, or is leaning in a certain direction, the court must 
13. 

not appear to be an advocate, either endorsing or redirecting the jury’s inclination. 

Although comments diverging from the standard should be embarked on with care, a trial 

court must do more than figuratively throw up its hands and tell the jury it cannot help. It 

must consider how it can best aid the jury and decide whether further explanation is 

desirable, or whether the reiteration of previously given instructions will suffice. 

[Citation.]” (People v. Moore, supra, 44 Cal.App.4th 1323, 1331, citing People v. 

Beardslee, supra, 53 Cal.3d 68, 97; italics added.) 

 In this case, the court fully satisfied its duties under section 1138 and did not abuse 

its discretion when it responded to the jury’s two questions. As we have explained, the 

jury in this case was repeatedly instructed on the precise point raised by defendant—that 

defendant and her codefendants had to agree to commit commercial burglary before they 

entered the department store. The court did not “throw up its hands” and fail to respond 

to the jury’s questions. Instead, it instructed the jury to again review CALCRIM No. 415 

on the elements of conspiracy. This instruction expressly directed the jury to refer to the 

instruction on commercial burglary, and the two instructions correctly set forth the legal 

elements for conspiracy to commit that offense. The court’s decision to reiterate the 

previously given and correct instructions was not an abuse of discretion. 

 For the same reasons, we reject defendant’s alternative ineffective assistance 

argument. Indeed, the record suggests defense counsel may not have objected to the 

court’s instructions or responses to the jury’s questions since the court properly referred 

the jury to the correct instructions. “Defense counsel does not render ineffective 

assistance by declining to raise meritless objections. [Citation.]” (People v. Ochoa

(2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 664, 674, fn. 8.) 

II. Restitution fine

 Defendant next contends the court erroneously calculated the $720 restitution fine 

based on an amended version of section 1202.4 that was not applicable to her case. 
14. 

Defendant argues the court violated the ex post facto provisions of the federal and state 

constitutions when it allegedly relied on the wrong statute. 

A. Background

 Defendant was charged with committing three felonies in July 2011. She was 

convicted in March 2012. The probation report recommended imposition of a $720 

restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4, without comment or explanation. 

On May 15, 2012, the court conducted the sentencing hearing. It followed the 

probation report’s recommendation and imposed a restitution fine of $720 pursuant to 

section 1202.4, subdivision (b), without further comment. The court retained jurisdiction 

for victim restitution. Defendant did not object. 

B. Analysis

 At the time that defendant committed the offenses in July 2011, former section 

1202.4, subdivision (b)(1) provided: 

“(b) In every case where a person is convicted of a crime, the court shall 

impose a separate and additional restitution fine, unless it finds compelling 

and extraordinary reasons for not doing so, and states those reasons on the 

record. [¶] (1) The restitution fine shall be set at the discretion of the court 

and commensurate with the seriousness of the offense, but shall not be less 

than two hundred dollars ($200), and not more than ten thousand dollars 

($10,000), if the person is convicted of a felony....” (Stats. 2011, ch. 45, 

§ 1.) 

 The calculation of restitution fines in section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1) was 

amended, effective January 1, 2012, as follows: 

“The restitution fine shall be set at the discretion of the court and 

commensurate with the seriousness of the offense, [but] shall not be less 

than two hundred forty dollars ($240) starting on January 1, 2012....” 

(Stats. 2011, ch. 358, § 1, italics added.) 

 Based on this amendment, defendant supposes the court calculated the $720 

restitution fine by erroneously relying on the version of section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1) 
15. 

that was not applicable to crimes committed before January 1, 2012, by multiplying $240 

by her three convictions. 

 We again note defendant did not object to the court’s imposition of the restitution 

fine or raise her ex post facto argument below. The rule of forfeiture is applicable to ex 

post facto claims, particularly where the alleged error could easily have been corrected if 

the issue had been raised at the sentencing hearing. (People v. White (1997) 55 

Cal.App.4th 914, 917.) 

In any event, the trial court imposed a restitution fine in this case that was well 

within the range of fines authorized at the time of the defendant’s commission of the July 

2011 offenses. There is nothing in the record to support defendant’s supposition that the 

court relied on the most recent version of section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1) when it 

imposed the $720 restitution fine. The court merely imposed the fine without comment. 

Since the restitution fine was in an amount authorized by the statute that was in effect at 

the time of defendant’s commission of the offense, and there is nothing in the record 

indicating that the trial court imposed the fine pursuant to the amended version of the 

statute, defendant’s ex post facto claim fails. 

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.