Filed 4/2/24 P. v. Salinas CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MIGUEL SALINAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

 D082011

 (Super. Ct. No. SCD294753)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, 

Aaron H. Katz, Judge. Affirmed.

Lizabeth Weis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant 

Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Robin 

Urbanski and Juliet W. Park, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and 

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The jury convicted Miguel Salinas of eight counts of various offenses, 

including assault with a deadly weapon, burglary, and carjacking, based on 
2

incidents occurring on May 19, 2022. The jury also found true a multitude of 

special allegations relating to the eight counts. The court sentenced Salinas 

to prison for two terms of life with the possibility of parole, plus an additional 

17 years and eight months.

Salinas appeals but only challenges the judgment as to two counts: 

attempted criminal threat (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 422; count 1) and kidnap for 

extortion (§ 209, subd. (a); count 8). He contends (1) the court prejudicially 

erred by failing to instruct the jury on an essential element of attempted 

criminal threat and (2) his conviction for kidnap for extortion is not supported 

by substantial evidence. Resolving this matter by memorandum opinion (see 

generally People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851-854), we disagree 

with Salinas and thus affirm.

I.

The crime of attempted criminal threat consists of three elements: 

(1) the defendant took a direct but ineffective step toward communicating a 

criminal threat; (2) the defendant intended to make a criminal threat; and 

(3) the intended criminal threat was sufficient under the circumstances to 

cause a reasonable person to be in sustained fear. (People v. Chandler (2014) 

60 Cal.4th 508, 525 (Chandler).) We agree with the parties that the trial 

court erred by failing to instruct the jury as to the third required element. 

(See People v. Jackson (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 590, 595 (Jackson).) Salinas 

contends this error was prejudicial, while the People maintain it was 

harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We agree with the People.

To determine whether the error was harmless, we review the 

circumstances of the case to determine whether “no reasonable juror could 

have failed to find defendant’s threats sufficient under the circumstances to 

cause a reasonable person to be in sustained fear.” (Chandler, supra, 
3

60 Cal.4th at p. 525.) For example, in Chandler, the defendant made explicit 

threats to two victims. (Id. at pp. 511-512.) He lived around the corner from

the first victim, called her profane names, reminded her that she lived alone, 

and threw tennis balls at the windows of her house and a pipe at her front 

door. (Id. at p. 511.) Also, the first victim once saw the defendant walking up 

the street holding “ ‘an object’ ” while threatening to kill her. (Id. at pp. 511-

512.) The second victim walked out of her house to see the defendant 

walking up the street swinging a golf club while threatening her. (Id. at 

p. 512.) The California Supreme Court noted the defendant made explicit 

threats that he was going to kill the victims “while face-to-face . . . on the 

street where the victims lived.” (Id. at p. 526.) Although the trial court failed 

to instruct the jury regarding the third element of attempted criminal threat, 

our high court determined the defendant’s “threats were sufficient under the 

circumstances to cause a reasonable person to be in sustained fear,” and “no 

reasonable juror could have concluded otherwise.” (Ibid.)

In contrast, in Jackson, the defendant made threats to blow the victims’

heads off and to chop their heads off. The victims called the police and 

waited inside the house while the defendant sat down outside. (Jackson, 

supra, 178 Cal.App.4th at p. 594.) “[T]he jury was not instructed to consider 

whether the intended threat reasonably could have caused sustained fear 

under the circumstances.” (Id. at p. 599.) “[T]he jury might have concluded, 

since [the victims] were safely inside the house with a telephone to call the 

police while defendant sat out front, or since defendant’s threats were so 

outlandish, that defendant’s statements could not reasonably have caused the 

victims to suffer sustained fear.” (Id. at p. 600.) Under these circumstances, 

the California Supreme Court concluded there was “nothing in the record 

upon which to find the verdict was actually based on a valid ground.” (Ibid.)
4

The instant matter is more like Chandler than Jackson. Unlike 

Jackson, where the victims were safe inside their home, here there was no 

barrier between Salinas and Barry Y. At one point, Salinas was about three 

feet from Barry Y. and then took a step back and said, “ ‘I’ll cut you’ ” while 

displaying a three-inch knife. In addition, Barry Y. testified that Salinas 

sounded angry and upset, held the knife with the blade extended throughout

their encounter, and evidenced the ability to immediately carry out his 

threat. Also, the jury convicted Salinas of assaulting Barry Y. with a deadly 

weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count 2) indicating that the jurors believed 

Salinas was close enough to Barry Y. to strike him with the knife. Against 

this backdrop, we conclude the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt 

because “no reasonable juror could have failed to find defendant’s threats 

sufficient under the circumstances to cause a reasonable person to be in 

sustained fear.” (Chandler, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 525.)

II.

Salinas next argues that substantial evidence does not support his 

conviction for kidnapping for extortion (count 8) involving Gary R. We 

disagree.

In reviewing Salinas’ substantial evidence challenge, we review the 

entire record in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdicts to determine 

whether it discloses evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value 

from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a 

reasonable doubt. (People v. Abilez (2007) 41 Cal.4th 472, 504.) “We presume 

in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the jury reasonably 

could deduce from the evidence.” (People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 

638-639.) We reverse for insufficient evidence only where it clearly appears 

that upon “no hypothesis” is there sufficient evidence to support a conviction. 
5

(People v. Ewing (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 359, 371.) Given our limited role on 

appeal, a defendant bears “an enormous burden” to establish there is 

insufficient evidence to sustain his or her convictions. (People v. Veale (2008) 

160 Cal.App.4th 40, 46.) Applying these principles, we conclude substantial 

evidence supports Salinas’ conviction for kidnapping for extortion.

“[T]he crime of extortion is related to the offense of robbery.” (People v. 

Kozlowski (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 853, 866.) “Both offenses . . . share a 

common element—acquisition by means of force or fear.” (Ibid.) However, 

“[t]he two crimes are distinguishable” because “in an extortion, the property 

is taken with the victim’s consent, while in a robbery, the property is taken 

against the victim’s will.” (Ibid.) Robbery requires (1) “a specific intent to 

permanently deprive the victim of the property” and (2) “the property be 

taken from the victim’s ‘person or immediate presence.’ ” (People v. Torres

(1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 37, 50 (Torres ); § 211.) Extortion, on the other hand, 

“require[s] the specific intent of inducing the victim to consent to part with 

his or her property.” (Torres, at p. 50.) The consent may be induced by the 

wrongful use of force or fear. (§ 518, subd. (a).)

In arguing substantial evidence does not support his conviction under 

count 8, Salinas relies on Torres and its interpretation of what constitutes a 

robbery. There, the defendant was a “ ‘rent’ ” collector for a gang in Los 

Angeles. (Torres, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 42.) One night, the defendant 

committed two crimes: (1) he shot and killed a drug dealer that he was trying 

to collect money from, and (2) he attempted to obtain money at gunpoint from 

a passerby. (Ibid.) During the defendant’s trial, a police officer testifying as 

the prosecution’s expert witness was asked if collecting “ ‘ “rent” ’ ” is 

extortion and if he could describe what he believed constituted the crime of 

extortion. (Id. at p. 44.) On appeal, the defendant in part argued his counsel 
6

was ineffective by failing to object to this portion of the officer’s testimony. 

(Id. at pp. 48-49.)

When analyzing the defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, 

Torres recounted the factual circumstances of the defendant’s crimes. When 

the passerby walked past, the defendant pointed a gun at him, ordered him 

against the wall, and asked him for money. (Torres, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at 

p. 51.) When the drug dealer walked by, the defendant grabbed him, put a 

gun to his head, and told him to give him the money or he would “ ‘put [his] 

brains out.’ ” (Ibid.) The drug dealer told the defendant to go ahead, and the 

defendant shot him point-blank in the head. (Ibid.)

Torres determined the evidence at trial showed the defendant 

committed attempted robbery of both victims. (Torres, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th 

at p. 52.) Concerning the crime committed against the passerby, the court 

noted the evidence showed the defendant did not have the specific intent to 

obtain the passerby’s money through consent, which is a necessary element of 

extortion. (Ibid.) As to the drug dealer, the court determined that by 

training his gun on the victim, the defendant demonstrated an intent to take 

his money through force against his will rather than with his consent induced 

by fear. (Ibid.) Ultimately, the Torres court concluded that a jury could not 

have reasonably reached any conclusion other than that the defendant’s acts 

constituted attempted robbery. (Ibid.) Thus, the court held that any error in 

permitting the officer’s testimony was harmless. (Ibid.)

Torres, however, is distinguishable from the instant matter. Here,

there is evidence from which a jury could conclude that Salinas had the 

specific intent necessary to commit extortion. Salinas, who was in the garage 

of Gary R.’s house, pulled Gary R. into the garage and shut the door. Then,

over a period of 40 minutes, Salinas subjected Gary R. to a variety of threats 
7

and violence, including telling Gary R. he would kill him multiple times, 

brandishing a knife, punching Gary R. in the chest, piercing the top of 

Gary R.’s head with a knife, and placing Gary R. in a tight headlock. In 

addition to threatening to harm Gary R., Salinas told Gary R. that he would 

rape Gary R.’s wife and “go after the rest of [Gary R.’s] family” and “get them 

. . . afterwards” because Salinas had been around the neighborhood and 

claimed to know the identity of Gary R.’s family. Given these threats, 

Gary R. testified that he was worried about his grandsons, wife, and his son’s 

mother in law, who were in the house during the encounter. Indeed, Gary R.

admitted that he felt like he had to do whatever was necessary to keep 

Salinas away from his family. Thus, the evidence proffered at trial showed 

that Salinas was making threats of future harm to Gary R.’s family if Gary R. 

did not comply with Salinas’ demands. 

“A distinction traditionally drawn between robbery and extortion is 

that a person commits robbery when he threatens immediate harm to the 

victim whereas he commits extortion when he threatens future harm to the 

victim.” (Torres, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 52, fn. 7.) Here, Salinas’ threat 

to hurt members of Gary R.’s family, who were not in the immediate vicinity,

qualifies as a threat of future harm. In addition, after this threat was made, 

Gary R. consented to give Salinas some of Gary R.’s property, including 

emptying his pockets containing a cell phone and keys, removing his watch 

and handing it to Salinas, and removing his clothes and giving them to 

Salinas. Although Salinas also directly threatened Gary R. during their 

interaction, it was reasonable for the jury to infer that (1) Salinas’ threats to 

harm Gary R.’s family caused him to consent to part with his property when 

Salinas asked him to do so, and (2) Salinas intended such a result. To the 

extent the evidence could support different inferences, “choos[ing] between 
8

competing inferences” is “within the province of the jury.” (People v. Williams

(2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 396, 408.) We therefore conclude substantial evidence 

supports Salinas’ conviction under count 8.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

CASTILLO, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

IRION, J.