Court Opinion

ID: 9881268
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-29 21:04:10.787961+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:11:40.162692
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/29/23 P. v. Mouton 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                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,
                                                                                             F084830
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                             (Super. Ct. No. CR-22-000522)
                    v.

    MORVONTE JOSEPH MOUTON,                                                               OPINION
           Defendant and Appellant.

                                                   THE COURT*
         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Dawna
Reeves, Judge.
         Heather E. Shallenberger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
         Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Lewis A. Martinez and Louis M.
Vasquez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                                                        -ooOoo-

*        Before Detjen, Acting P. J., Smith, J. and Snauffer, J.
                                   INTRODUCTION
       Appellant Morvonte Joseph Mouton was found guilty by a jury of felony
vandalism. He was sentenced to two years’ probation and 90 days in jail.
       Appellant argues there was not substantial evidence to sustain his conviction
because appellant’s identity as the perpetrator was not sufficiently proven.
       We affirm.
                              PROCEDURAL HISTORY
       In an information filed on May 3, 2022, the Stanislaus County District Attorney
charged appellant with one count of felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(1);
count 1), and misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine
(Health and Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a); count 2.)
       On July 20, 2022, the trial court granted the prosecution’s motion to dismiss
count 2. Following a jury trial, appellant was found guilty of count 1. Appellant was
sentenced to 90 days in jail and two years’ probation.
       Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on August 19, 2022.
                               STATEMENT OF FACTS
       Underlying Offense
       On January 21, 2022, Steven Weldon, senior superintendent for a construction
company, arrived at a construction site in Modesto at around 5:15 a.m. Weldon was
across the street from an auto parts store getting a bag out of his car when he saw an
individual throw a rock through the store’s window. The headlights on Weldon’s truck
were turned on and pointed toward the direction of the auto parts store, and Weldon was
about 150 feet away from the individual when they threw the rock.
       Weldon described the individual as wearing dark clothing, pants, a “hoodie,” and a
hat, and as having a slim build. After throwing the rock, the individual walked away
down the street. Weldon let an employee of the auto parts store know what happened and
called the police.

                                             2.
       About three minutes later, Weldon spoke with Modesto Police Officer Jacob
Crawford, and pointed out the direction the individual went. After speaking with
Weldon, Crawford located appellant approximately two blocks from the auto parts store,
at around 6:30 a.m. Appellant was wearing a beanie and a jacket, with the jacket hood up
over his head. Appellant was also wearing light colored denim jeans.
       About 10 or 15 minutes after speaking with Crawford, Weldon received a call
from him saying that they had found a suspect and needed Weldon to identify him.
Weldon was picked up by Modesto Police Officer John Moss from the construction site
and taken to where the suspect was detained. Weldon remained in the police car with
Moss, about 30 feet to 50 feet away from the individual. Moss first gave Weldon a
“Simmons Admonishment.”1 After requesting the suspect turn around, Weldon
identified him as wearing the same clothes and having the same build as the person he
saw throw the rock.
       Testimony at Trial
       Appellant testified in his own defense. He stated that on January 21, 2022, he was
living at an adult rehabilitation center and had left that morning to smoke a cigarette and
use crystal meth. He walked for five minutes before being detained by the officers.
During cross-examination, the following exchange occurred:

              “[PROSECUTION]: And when [Crawford] detained you,
              you asked him [w]hat was thrown or [w]hat happened; is that
              correct?

              “[APPELLANT]: Yes, I asked what they were trying to stop
              me for.

1       This admonishment directed Weldon to keep an open mind, not to discuss the
incident with anyone involved, and that it is just as important to free innocent people as it
is to identify individuals that are involved in the case.

                                             3.
“[PROSECUTION]: Eventually when—did you ask
[Crawford] what the damage was or what the vandalism was
about?

“[APPELLANT]: I don’t recall asking him about that, I
recall asking him to please go talk to the security guard so
they could clear my name.

“[PROSECUTION]: Do you remember [Crawford] telling
you that he just responded to the call, he wasn’t sure what
was thrown or what happened?

“[APPELLANT]: I remember he said he would tell me later
about why I was getting detained.

“[PROSECUTION]: And then you said, [t]here was a rock
thrown in the building.

“[APPELLANT]: No, I commented that—I commented
exactly, [w]hy would I throw a rock at a building because
that’s what comes to my mind when someone says vandalism
because a rock was thrown through my apartment and a rock
was thrown through my car window.

“[PROSECUTION]: So you didn’t know what was being
thrown?

“[APPELLANT]: I didn’t know it was a vandalism until I
was in the back of the car.

“[PROSECUTION]: And you volunteered to [Crawford] that
there was a rock—you’re being accused of throwing a rock?

“[APPELLANT]: No. I said—when they said that I was
being arrested for vandalism, I said, [w]hy would I do
something like that?

“[PROSECUTION]: Did you mention a rock?

“[APPELLANT]: Yes, I did, because that’s what comes to
my mind when I think of vandalism.”

                               4.
       Crawford was recalled as a witness. He testified that when he detained appellant,
appellant asked him what was broken. Crawford responded that he wasn’t sure what had
occurred, and he was just responding to a call. Appellant then brought up that a rock was
thrown into a building without any prompting.
                                       DISCUSSION
I.     Substantial Evidence Supports the Felony Vandalism Conviction
       Appellant argues there was insufficient evidence to support the felony vandalism
conviction, because appellant’s identity as the perpetrator was not sufficiently proven and
the eyewitness identification was too generic. We find substantial evidence supports the
conviction and affirm.
       A.     Legal Standard
       On appeal, this court “ ‘must determine whether a reasonable trier of fact could
have found the prosecution sustained its burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt.’ ” (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576.) We “examine the
whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses
substantial evidence—evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value—such that
a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
(People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053.)
       “To entitle a reviewing court to set aside a jury’s finding of guilt, the evidence of
identity must be so weak as to constitute practically no evidence at all.” (People v. Braun
(1939) 14 Cal.2d 1, 5.) “The general rule, then, is that it is not essential that a witness be
free from doubt as to one’s identity. He may testify that in his belief, opinion or
judgment the accused is the person who perpetrated the crime, and the want of
positiveness goes only to the weight of the testimony.” (People v. Lindsay (1964) 227
Cal.App.2d 482, 494.) “Our courts have held that it is not necessary that any of the
witnesses called to identify the accused should have seen his face. [Citation.]
Identification based on other peculiarities may be reasonably sure. Consequently, the

                                              5.
identity of a defendant may be established by proof of any peculiarities of size,
appearance, similarity of voice, features or clothing.” (Ibid.)
       B.     Analysis
       Appellant argues that Weldon’s description was too general and did not describe
anything “peculiar” about the suspect. Appellant further argues nothing incriminating
was found on appellant connecting him to the offense.
       We disagree. Appellant was found only two blocks away from the auto parts
store, roughly 10 to 15 minutes after the vandalism occurred, proximately close in both
time and place. Weldon’s description mostly matched appellant’s appearance—he was
wearing dark clothes and had a slim build. One particularity Weldon described was that
the suspect was wearing both a hat and a “hoodie.” Appellant was wearing a beanie and
had his jacket hood pulled over his head.
       Weldon saw the suspect from about 150 feet away while they were illuminated by
his truck’s headlights. When Weldon identified appellant as the suspect, he was less than
50 feet away. In both cases, Weldon had clear visibility of appellant.
       Finally, appellant himself provided evidence of his identity as the suspect. When
Crawford detained him and said that he was just responding to a call, appellant responded
by asking why he would throw a rock at a building. Appellant was not told a rock had
been thrown at a building and provided that information spontaneously. Appellant
attempted to explain away his response, but the jury did not appear to find his explanation
credible.
       The positiveness of Weldon’s identification of appellant goes to the credibility of
his testimony, but it was not so weak as to constitute no evidence. Weldon described
appellant’s clothes and build, and described the particularity that appellant was wearing
both a hat and a hoodie. Appellant was also proximately close to the crime scene in both
time and place. Finally, appellant knew facts about the vandalism that Crawford did not

                                             6.
initially mention. Taken together, substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding that
appellant was the perpetrator.
                                     DISPOSITION
       The judgement is affirmed.

                                            7.