Filed 9/21/23 P. v. Mercado CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DANIEL PATRICK MERCADO,

Defendant and Appellant.

 H046930

 (Santa Clara County

 Super. Ct. No. C1776749)

A jury found defendant Daniel Mercado guilty of five armed robberies, assault 

with a firearm, and multiple instances of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He 

contends the evidence is insufficient to support the assault conviction and most of the 

firearm possession counts. He also contends the jury was incorrectly instructed on the 

elements of assault and was allowed to consider inadmissible testimony from two 

witnesses. Finally, he asserts the case must be remanded for resentencing based on new 

legislation that was enacted after he was sentenced and is applicable retroactively. We 

will reverse the judgment and vacate three firearm possession convictions not supported 

by substantial evidence. We will also remand for resentencing under the current

standards.

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant committed a string of convenience store robberies in September and 

October 2017. On a Saturday night in September, he and a man named Anthony Garcia, 

both carrying guns, entered a 7-Eleven store in San Jose around 2:00 a.m. and ordered the 
2

clerk to open the cash register. They fled with over $300. An hour and a half later they 

robbed another 7-Eleven store in essentially the same way, taking another $400 to $500. 

The following month, defendant and a man named Derek Cornell robbed two more 7-

Eleven stores at gunpoint. Then they robbed a liquor store. All five robberies were 

captured on video by security cameras. 

Earlier in October, defendant and Cornell were in an altercation with two men in a

liquor store parking lot. Defendant drew a gun and pointed it at the men, chasing after 

them as they ran away. That part of the confrontation was recorded by a security camera. 

Out of frame, two shots were fired and the bullets shattered the window of a nearby hair 

salon, striking an interior wall next to where one of the hairstylists was standing. 

Police identified defendant as one of the robbers by comparing images from the 

security camera footage with photos from defendant’s social media profile, and they 

located him in San Jose on October 31, 2017. As police approached, defendant ran, 

tossing a gun into a nearby yard. Officers retrieved the gun, which looked like the one 

used in the convenience store robberies. Forensic testing later confirmed it was the gun

that fired the bullets into the hair salon. 

Defendant and Anthony Garcia were tried jointly. (Derek Cornell was initially 

joined as a codefendant, but his case was severed when proceedings were suspended to 

determine his competency to stand trial.) The jury convicted defendant of five counts of 

robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)), one count of assault with a firearm (Pen. 

Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2)), and found true special allegations that he personally used a 

firearm in committing each offense. It also convicted defendant of four counts of 

possessing a firearm as a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, sub. (a)), and one count of 

possessing ammunition as a felon (Pen. Code, § 30305, subd. (a)(1)). In a bifurcated 

proceeding, the court found true that defendant has two prior convictions resulting in 

prison terms and a prior serious felony conviction. (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subdivision (b); 

667.5, subd. (a).) The court imposed an aggregate prison term of 45 years, eight months. 
3

II. DISCUSSION

A. SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE

Defendant contends the evidence is insufficient to support three of the four 

charged counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm because he possessed the same 

gun continuously and can therefore be convicted of only one count. As the Attorney 

General concedes, the evidence shows a single continuing offense without the 

interruption in possession necessary for separate crimes. (See People v. Mason (2014) 

232 Cal.App.4th 355, 365.) (Indeed, to help prove identity of the perpetrator, the 

prosecutor relied on the fact that the same gun was used in all the offenses.) We will 

therefore reverse the judgment and order all but one firearm possession conviction 

vacated. 

Defendant also contends the evidence is insufficient to convict him of assault with 

a firearm because there is no evidence he was aware the shots he fired would likely result 

in force being applied to the two men he chased after the parking lot altercation. Here we 

are mindful of the deferential standard we must apply where sufficiency of the evidence

is challenged. We review the record in the light most favorable to the judgment for

evidence from which a rational trier of fact could find the elements of the crime 

established beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Tripp (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 951, 

955.) We presume the existence of every fact in favor of conviction that the jury could 

reasonably infer. (People v. Medina (2009) 46 Cal.4th 913, 919.) And to overturn a 

conviction, “it must clearly appear that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient 

substantial evidence to support it.” (People v. Redmond (1969) 71 Cal.2d 745, 755.)

Assault is committed when a person does something knowing it will likely result 

in physical force being applied to another. (See People v. Williams (2001) 

26 Cal.4th 779, 788; People v. Chance (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1164, 1169.) Defendant argues 

the evidence does not establish he knew the two shots he fired would likely cause harm to 

the victims. He points to the partial video of the encounter, which shows him chasing the 
4

men in the direction away from the hair salon where the bullets were recovered. Because 

the video does not reveal where he was standing or where the victims were when the 

shots were fired, defendant argues the jury should have found the evidence inadequate to 

prove he was firing toward the victims or in any manner likely to physically harm them. 

We acknowledge the logic of defendant’s argument, but conclude the jury 

rationally could infer from footage of defendant chasing the men while pointing a gun at 

them that the shots fired from that gun moments later were fired toward those men, 

including the further inference that they changed direction at some point while fleeing. 

Applying our deferential standard of review, we find sufficient evidence supports the 

jury’s decision to convict defendant of assault with a firearm. 

B. ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE

1. Opinion Testimony Identifying Defendant in the Videos

Defendant contends the trial court improperly allowed a police officer to testify 

about the identity of the perpetrators shown in the videos of the convenience store 

robberies and the shooting. The officer testified that one of the people shown in the 

videos appeared in photographs on defendant’s social media account, and she recognized 

the person in the photographs as defendant. The officer explained she reached that 

conclusion based on both the person’s physical characteristics and certain articles of 

clothing (shoes and a hat) worn in the videos and the social media photographs. 

Defendant argues the testimony is inadmissible because the officer did not have adequate 

personal knowledge regarding defendant’s appearance. We review the decision to allow

the testimony for abuse of discretion. (People v. Virgil (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1210, 1253.) 

The identity of an individual seen in photographic evidence is an appropriate

subject for lay opinion testimony and is properly admitted if the witness’s opinion is 

predicated on “ ‘contacts with defendant, their awareness of his physical characteristics 

on the day of the robbery, and their perception of the film taken of the events.’ ” (People 

v. Leon (2015) 61 Cal.4th 569, 601, citing People v. Perry (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 608, 
5

613.) It is irrelevant whether the witness’s contact with the defendant was before or after 

the crimes were committed. (Leon, at p. 601.) Questions about familiarity with the 

defendant’s appearance go to the weight of the testimony not its admissibility. (Ibid.) 

Accordingly, “decisions have long upheld admission of testimony identifying defendants 

in surveillance footage or photographs.” (Ibid.) The testimony here was adequately 

supported by the requisite awareness of defendant’s physical characteristics and was 

based on the officer’s perception of the images. We see no abuse of discretion in 

allowing the testimony.

2. Testimony About Gunshots and Bullet Holes in the Salon

Defendant contends the trial court improperly admitted testimony from a 

hairstylist who worked at the salon that was struck by bullets. The stylist first described 

hearing gunshots and seeing the front window shattered and bullet holes in the wall. She

then testified that she was hit by broken glass, that a bullet hole in the wall was close to 

where her head had been, that she felt frightened, and that police told her the bullet would 

have gone into her head had she not ducked. Defendant argues the later, more 

descriptive, testimony is inadmissible because it is not relevant and, alternatively, that its

probative value is outweighed by its prejudicial effect. A trial court has broad discretion 

to decide what evidence is relevant and to assess whether undue prejudice significantly

outweighs probative value. (People v. Merriman (2014) 60 Cal.4th 1, 82). We review 

such a decision for abuse of discretion. (Ibid.)

Part of a trial court’s broad discretion to determine relevancy and weigh prejudice

is the ability to permit background information that can help a jury understand the 

circumstances surrounding the relevant event. (See People v. Edwards (1991) 

54 Cal.3d 787, 818, overruled on unrelated grounds as stated in People v. McDaniel 

(2021) 12 Cal.5th 97, 138.) The trial court was not required to sanitize the hairstylist’s 

testimony to the extent requested by defendant, who asserts she should have been limited 

to merely stating she saw glass shatter and later found bullet holes in the wall. The 
6

decision to allow the more emotional description merely included a “slight touch of 

humanity” in the narrative and was not an abuse of discretion. (People v. Edwards,

supra, at p. 818.)

C. JURY INSTRUCTIONS

Defendant contends the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the offense of 

assault with a firearm because the instruction allowed the jury to convict him without 

finding every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. In reviewing the 

propriety of jury instructions, we evaluate whether there is a reasonable likelihood that 

the jury applied the challenged instruction in a manner contrary to law. (People v. Young 

(2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1202.) We consider the instruction in the context of the entire 

record, including the arguments of counsel, as instructional ambiguity can be clarified 

through closing argument. (Ibid.) 

Defendant asserts the assault instruction was flawed because it states the 

prosecution must prove application of force to “a person” and the jury could find 

defendant guilty if he knew his conduct was likely to result in force to “someone.” In 

defendant’s view, given that he was alleged to have assaulted the two men he was 

chasing in the parking lot, the nonspecific language regarding victim identity allowed the 

jury to find him guilty without finding it was those particular men he assaulted.

Reading the instruction in the context of this record, we see no reasonable 

likelihood of juror confusion. We note at the outset that trial counsel did not object to the 

instruction as given nor suggest that clarification was necessary, which undercuts the 

assertion that the instruction is as confusing as defendant now suggests. (See People v. 

Young, supra, 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1203.) And more importantly, arguments of counsel 

sufficiently clarified the point. The prosecution proceeded on the theory that the victims 

of the assault were the two men being chased in the parking lot (identified in the charging 

documents as “John Does”). That is precisely what the prosecutor argued to the jury: 

“He’s firing at the people that he pulled out the gun and chased across the street. They 
7

came looking for a fight. There is no question. They are coming down that alley, coming 

to that liquor store, and Mr. Mercado repeatedly checks that he has his gun with him ... . 

The evidence is that he was shooting at people. We don’t know their names. We don’t 

have to. They’re alleged in the complaint as ‘John Doe.’ ” The prosecutor’s closing 

argument dispelled the potential for juror confusion, and we find no instructional error.

D. PROSECUTION STATEMENTS IN CLOSING ARGUMENT

Defendant contends the prosecutor misstated the law during closing argument by 

saying that a warning shot is enough to constitute assault with a firearm. The statement 

was made in the prosecutor’s rebuttal argument, after defense counsel argued the shots 

fired by defendant in the parking lot could have been warning shots, not intended to strike 

anyone, and therefore could not be an assault. In response to that argument, the 

prosecutor told the jury a warning shot “is an assault that is likely to produce an impact. 

When you shoot a warning shoot [sic], you are very likely to hit someone. [¶] There’s 

nothing in [the instructions] that ... says a warning shot is a defense to count 3. It’s not. 

It is inherently dangerous to human life, and it is a violation of Penal Code section 245.” 

A prosecutor has wide latitude to argue the case during closing and is free to

suggest inferences and deductions the jury should draw from the evidence. (People v. 

Wharton (1991) 53 Cal.3d 522, 567.) The gist of the rebuttal argument here was that the 

jury should not acquit merely because the shots could have been intended as warning 

shots, since any shots fired in the direction of a person—whether as a warning or not—

are likely to cause harm. The challenged statements raised a fair point in response to the 

defense argument for acquittal, and it was not error for the trial court to overrule 

defendant’s objection to that portion of the closing argument. 

E. APPLICATION OF NEW SENTENCING LAWS

1. Presumptive Low Term Where Offender’s Youth a Factor

The trial court imposed the middle term of six years for the robbery designated as 

the principal offense for sentencing purposes. After defendant was sentenced, Assembly 
8

Bill No. 124 was enacted which amended Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b) to 

mandate the low term under certain circumstances, including where the defendant was 

under age 26 at the time of the offense and youth was a contributing factor in the offense. 

(See Pen. Code, § 1170, subdivision (b)(6).) Because that new provision is ameliorative, 

it applies retroactively to this nonfinal judgment. (People v. Flores (2022) 73 

Cal.App.5th 1032, 1039.)

The Attorney General does not dispute defendant was under 26 at the time of the 

offenses but argues resentencing is not required because there is no evidence youth was a 

contributing factor and the aggravating factors found by the court outweigh the mitigating 

factors such that the court would not have imposed the low term in any event. But when 

a court has imposed a sentence while unaware of the extent of its discretion—in this case 

because the legislation was not yet in effect—resentencing is required unless the record 

clearly indicates the court would have imposed the same sentence under the new 

standard. (People v. Gerson (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1067, 1096.) The new legislation 

potentially constrained the scope of the trial court’s authority, not merely permitting the 

low term in certain situations but mandating it. 

This record does not clearly indicate the trial court would have imposed the same 

sentence under the new law. We are not persuaded that a lack of evidence showing youth 

contributed to the offense obviates the need for remand, as before the enactment of the 

new law, counsel may have had less incentive to present mitigation on the point, and

defendant should now be allowed the opportunity to do so. (See People v. Gerson, supra, 

80 Cal.App.5th 1067, 1096.)

2. Enhancement for Prior Serious Felony

Defendant’s sentence was increased based on the finding that he was convicted in 

2012 of a serious felony. The prior conviction is for assault under former Penal Code 

section 245, subdivision (a)(1), which qualified as a prior serious felony because it was 

found to have been committed to benefit a criminal street gang under Penal Code 
9

section 186.22. Defendant contends the prior serious felony enhancement must be 

vacated because legislation enacted after his sentencing (Assembly Bill No. 333) added 

several elements to the gang enhancement statute, and if the current standard is applied to 

his 2012 conviction, the evidence is insufficient to prove the new elements.

Defendant’s argument fails because the changes to the gang statute apply

retroactively only to judgments that are not yet final. (People v. Burgos (2022) 

77 Cal.App.5th 550, 563.) The conviction from 2012 to which defendant seeks to apply 

the new statute is final. The amended statute does not apply to defendant’s 2012 

conviction and therefore affects neither the conviction nor the collateral consequences 

that flow from it. (See People v. Foster (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1202, 1211 [rule that 

ameliorative statutes apply retroactively to nonfinal judgments does not negate collateral 

consequences of convictions that are final].)

3. Enhancements for Prior Prison Terms

Applying the version of Penal Code section 667.5 in effect at the time of 

defendant’s sentencing in 2019, the trial court imposed and stayed two one-year 

enhancements for prior prison terms. The offenses for which defendant served the prior 

prison terms are assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury and being a felon in 

possession of a firearm. Effective January 1, 2020, Penal Code section 667.5 was 

amended to limit prior prison term enhancements to sentences that were served for 

sexually violent offenses as defined in Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600,

subdivision (b). (Senate Bill No. 136, (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.; Stats. 2019, ch. 590, § 1.) 

The Attorney General concedes the amendment applies retroactively and requires the 

prior prison term enhancements to be vacated because they were not based on sexually 

violent offenses. We will remand the case for resentencing under the current standards.

4. Application of Amended Penal Code Section 1385

Defendant correctly notes that effective January 1, 2022, Senate Bill No. 81

amended Penal Code section 1385 to limit sentencing enhancements by requiring, for 
10

example, dismissal of all special allegations that would result in imposition of more than 

a single enhancement. (Pen. Code, § 1385, subdivision (c)(3)(B).) By its terms, 

amended Penal Code section 1385 applies to all sentencings after January 1, 2022, which 

will include defendant’s resentencing. (See Pen. Code, § 1385, subdivision (c)(7) [“This 

subdivision shall apply to all sentencings occurring after January 1, 2022.”].)

5. The Term for Ammunition Possession Must Be Stayed

The Attorney General points out that the trial court imposed a concurrent prison 

term for possessing ammunition, which should have been stayed under Penal Code 

section 654 because the ammunition offense is based on the same conduct as unlawfully 

possessing a firearm, for which the court also imposed a prison term. Defendant agrees 

the ammunition possession term should have been stayed. When resentencing defendant,

the trial court shall apply Penal Code section 654 to stay any prison terms arising from

conduct for which punishment is otherwise imposed. 

III. DISPOSITION

The judgment is reversed. All but one conviction for violating Penal Code 

section 29800, subdivision (a) are vacated. Defendant’s other convictions shall remain. 

The matter is remanded to the trial court with directions to resentence defendant under 

current law. 
____________________________________

Grover, J.

WE CONCUR:

____________________________

Greenwood, P. J. 

____________________________

Danner, J. 

H046930

The People v. Mercado