Filed 2/26/13 P. v. Robledo CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

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

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MANUEL ROBLEDO,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B243547

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. VA118863)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Roger 

Ito, Judge. Modified with directions, as so modified, affirmed.

Michael W. Flynn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

Defendant and appellant Manuel Robledo appeals from the judgment entered 

following revocation of probation previously granted following his plea of guilty to grand 

theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)).1 The trial court sentenced Robledo to three years in 

county jail. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. Facts – the probation violation.

a. The prosecution’s case.

At approximately 12:10 a.m. on May 10, 2012, Los Angeles County Deputy 

Sheriff David Avila and his partner were on patrol in the area of Myrtle and Whittier 

Boulevards. At the intersection of Edna and Myrtle, the deputy observed Robledo, 

accompanied by two passengers, driving a 2001 Chevrolet Tahoe at approximately 

45 miles per hour in a 25-mile-per-hour zone. In addition, the vehicle‟s headlights were 

not on and Robledo failed to stop at a stop sign. Believing that Robledo was driving 

recklessly in violation of Vehicle Code section 23103, the deputy pulled up until his 

patrol car was approximately one or two car lengths behind Robledo, then turned on his 

overhead red lights to conduct a traffic stop.

Robledo pulled to the right side of the street and stopped. As he did so, the 

passenger riding in the backseat of the car, Rudy Garcia, got out and ran west on Whittier 

Boulevard. He was holding in his right hand a small, black, semi-automatic firearm. 

Avila and his partner approached Robledo‟s vehicle with their guns drawn. Once 

back-up units arrived “to help contain the area” and find Garcia, the deputies had 

Robledo and the front seat passenger, Jonathan Loaza, get out of the car. Robledo had 

been cooperative. When Avila had turned on his overhead lights, Robledo pulled over 

immediately. When the deputies then ordered him to place his hands where they could be 

seen, he had done so. He made no “furtive movements.”

 

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

Avila was familiar with Robledo and knew that he was a member of the Pico 

Viejo Gang.

2

 However, the area in which he had been driving was considered “a Jardin 

Gang area.” Avila knew that the two gangs were frequently “at war” with one another.

Approximately 30 minutes after the traffic stop, Garcia was located in the 

backyard of a nearby residence. When deputies ordered him to come out, he did so and 

surrendered. However, no gun was ever recovered.

Los Angeles County Sheriff‟s Detective Hank Ortega was also familiar with 

Robledo. The detective had been “working” the Pico Rivera area since 2005 and, during 

that time, had had several contacts with Robledo, an admitted gang member whose 

moniker is “ „Sick One.‟ ” Ortega was also familiar with Rudy Garcia, who is also an 

admitted Pico Viejo Gang member whose moniker is “ „Rowdy.‟ ”

Ortega knew the area surrounding the intersection of Edna and Myrtle and 

believed that the territory belonged, not to the Pico Viejo Gang, but to its rival, the Jardin 

Gang. If the detective were told that “Pico Viejo gang members were driving in a vehicle 

with their lights out in the area of Edna and Myrtle [at 12:10 in the morning] and one of 

them had a handgun,” it would cause the detective “some concern.” Because the Pico 

Viejo Gang members would have been in the “heart of a rival [gang‟s] territory,” the 

detective would assume they were “out looking for trouble.”

b. Defense evidence.

Robledo testified that, at approximately midnight on May 10, 2012, he was taking 

his cousin, Rudy Garcia, “to a girl‟s house in Montebello.” Robledo was driving his 

brother‟s car, a 2001 Chevrolet Tahoe. The lights on the car are “ „automatic.‟ ” In other 

words, when it begins to get dark, the lights automatically go on.

 

2 Although Avila believed that Robledo and his two passengers were related in that 

they were all Pico Viejo Gang members, it was later determined that the three men were 

also cousins.
4

When he was driving down Myrtle Boulevard, Robledo was traveling at between 

20 and 26 miles per hour. He is familiar with the street because he lives in Montebello 

and frequently uses it as a shortcut. When he was stopped by deputy sheriffs on May 10, 

2012, Robledo and his two cousins were coming from Robledo‟s mother‟s home in Pico 

Rivera and he was approximately a mile from his home in Montebello. Robledo stated 

that neither he nor either one of his two cousins had been in possession of a gun that 

night. There had been no gun in his vehicle.

When he was pulled over by the deputy sheriffs, Robledo‟s cousin, Rudy, 

“bail[ed] out of the car” because he was on probation. Since Robledo is an admitted 

member of the Pico Viejo Gang and Rudy was a gang member, “it was a violation” of the 

terms of his probation for Rudy to be with Robledo. 

Robledo admitted that, although he did not believe the two gangs were “ „at 

war,‟ ” he knew he had been driving through a rival gang‟s territory on the night he was 

stopped. 

2. Procedural history; the trial court’s ruling.

After considering the evidence, the trial court stated: “Well, [based on] the fact 

pattern presented to me, Mr. Robledo is picking up his cousin at his mother‟s house in an 

area that is very different . . . [from the area] where the stop takes place. I articulated for 

the record I believe the sequence of the streets [and] there are several main thoroughfares 

. . . that would have been preferable to driv[ing] through . . . rival gang territory. [¶] And 

when you compound that by the fact the vehicle[‟]s lights [were] not on and an individual 

riding in the backseat, whether [it was] his cousin [or not], [was] a member of the same 

P.V. gang and [was] seen running out of the vehicle with [a] firearm, I‟d say by [a] 

preponderance of the evidence Mr. Robledo [was] in violation of [the] terms and 

conditions of [his] probation, which [included that he] obey all laws, rules [and] orders of 

the court . . . . I am going to find him in violation of his . . . probation.” 
5

The trial court noted that Robledo had suffered prior convictions involving 

“firearms in vehicles.” The court continued, “This is not a low-term case to me . . . . I‟m 

disinclined to put him back on probation. There‟s been no great acts of violence 

surrounding Mr. Robledo, but as far as . . . I can see, it‟s only a matter of time.” Based 

on his “criminal history” and his “poor performance” on probation and parole, the trial 

court sentenced Robledo to the “high term of three years” in county jail. (See § 1170, 

subd. (h).) The court then ordered Robledo to pay $240 to the victim restitution fund 

(§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $240 probation revocation fine (§ 1202.44), a $40 court 

operations assessment (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)) and a $30 criminal conviction assessment 

(Gov. Code, § 70373).3 The trial court awarded Robledo presentence custody credit for 

180 days which he had served in Orange County, 22 days actually served in Los Angeles 

and 22 days of good time/work time, for a total of 224 days.

Robledo filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgment on August 22, 2012.

CONTENTIONS

After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief which raised no 

issues and requested this court to conduct an independent review of the record. By notice 

filed December 11, 2012, the clerk of this court advised Robledo to submit within 

30 days any contentions, grounds of appeal or arguments he wished this court to consider. 

No response has been received to date. 

REVIEW ON APPEAL

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied counsel has complied fully 

with counsel‟s responsibilities. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-284; People 

v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443.) 

 

3

The abstract of judgment indicates the trial court imposed a fine of only $200 

pursuant to section 1202.44 and imposed a fine of $36 pursuant to section 1202.5. 
6

DISPOSITION

The trial court is directed to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect a section 

1202.44 fine of $240 and to delete the $36 fine imposed pursuant to section 1202.5, then 

to send a corrected copy of the abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections. In 

all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUSLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KLEIN, P. J.

We concur:

KITCHING, J.

ALDRICH, J.