Court Opinion

ID: 9913795
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-28 20:02:16.052104+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:58:30.316899
License: Public Domain

Filed 12/28/23 P. v. Smith CA2/5
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 FIVE

 THE PEOPLE,                                               B323968

          Plaintiff and Respondent,                        (Los Angeles County
                                                           Super. Ct. No. TA152774)
          v.

 DAZJOHIN RENE SMITH,

          Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Laura R. Walton, Judge. Affirmed as modified.
      Susan Morrow Maxwell, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Jason Tran, Supervising Deputy
Attorney General, and Taylor Nguyen, Deputy Attorney General,
for Plaintiff and Respondent.
      A jury convicted defendant Dazjohin Smith (defendant) of
conspiracy to commit murder, among other charges. The key
evidence at trial was surveillance video footage that showed
defendant as a passenger in a vehicle driven by someone else in
the territory of a rival gang, the vehicle pausing after passing a
parked car occupied by other men, and the vehicle then parking
around the corner—whereupon defendant exits, walks back to
the parked car, fires several gunshots at the occupants inside,
and flees back to the waiting getaway vehicle. We are asked to
decide whether the video footage combined with the other
evidence admitted at trial is substantial evidence of an advance
agreement to commit murder sufficient to support a conspiracy
conviction.

                       I. BACKGROUND
      A.    The Offense Conduct, as Established by the Evidence
            at Trial
      Brothers Raymond Carrizoza (Raymond) and Osvaldo
Carrizoza (Osvaldo) were sitting in a car with three friends
around 3:30 p.m. on February 3, 2019. It was Super Bowl
Sunday, and the men were smoking marijuana before the game.
They were parked on 152nd Street near the intersection with
Dwight Avenue in Compton.
      Someone suddenly began firing gunshots at the car, and
everyone but Raymond ducked—he had “nowhere to hide” in the
rear middle seat. A bullet fragment lodged in Raymond’s
forehead near the temple, but he was quickly taken to the
hospital and survived. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
(LASD) deputies found six nine-millimeter shell casings at the
scene.

                                 2
       Nobody in the car belonged to a gang, but the intersection
of 152nd and Dwight lies within territory claimed by the
Compton Varrio 155 street gang. A rival gang, Park Village
Compton Crips, claims territory immediately to the east. There
is a history of violent conflict between the two gangs, and both
Raymond and Osvaldo noticed new Park Village Compton Crips
graffiti in the area after the shooting.
       An LASD detective obtained surveillance video of the area
after the shooting. The video, admitted at trial, includes views
from three different cameras. A small, black, four-door vehicle is
shown driving westbound on 152nd toward Dwight and stopping
at a stop sign for about 15 seconds despite there being no cross
traffic. The vehicle turns left at Dwight and stops along a curb
outside a residence, partially blocking a driveway. The rear
driver’s side door opens about 10 seconds later, and a man exits a
few seconds after that.
       The man, who is wearing a dark colored hoodie with a
distinctive logo on the back and is later identified as defendant,
crosses the street and walks back around the corner toward the
victims’ parked car. Defendant draws a gun, fires multiple shots,
and runs back in the direction of the small black vehicle in which
he arrived. Someone opens the rear driver’s side door of the
vehicle from the inside before defendant reaches the vehicle, and
the vehicle speeds off once defendant is back inside. This all
takes less than a minute.
       Investigators also obtained photos posted on social media
that show defendant associating with known Park Village
Compton Crips members and making hand signs associated with
the gang. Defendant also posted images disrespecting Compton
Varrio 155 and suggesting he had committed a violent act against

                                3
the gang. In addition, just minutes after the shooting, defendant
sent a message on a social media platform to Park Village
Compton Crips members and associates warning about police in
the area. He sent another message to the same group not long
thereafter warning that Compton Varrio 155 members might
seek to retaliate for the shooting.

       B.     Verdict and Sentencing
       Defendant was charged with conspiracy to commit murder
(Pen. Code,1 § 182, subd. (a); count one),2 five counts of attempted
willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder (§§ 664, 187; counts
two through six), and shooting at an occupied motor vehicle
(§ 246; count seven). As to the conspiracy count, the information
alleged the following overt acts: “1. Conspirator traveled in a car
to a rival gang’s location [¶] 2. Conspirator brought a semi-
automatic firearm [¶] 3. Conspirator exited car with a semi-
automatic firearm [¶] 4. Conspirator fired multiple rounds at
victim’s car [¶] 5. Conspirator ran back to car [¶] 6. Conspirator
fled location.” Firearm, Three Strikes Law, and great bodily
injury enhancements were also alleged. The jury convicted

1
     Undesignated statutory references that follow are to the
Penal Code.
2
      A magistrate determined at a preliminary hearing that
there was insufficient evidence to hold defendant to answer for
conspiracy to commit murder, but the prosecution re-filed the
charge and the court denied defendant’s motion to set it aside.

                                 4
defendant on all counts and found the firearm and great bodily
injury allegations true.3
      The trial court sentenced defendant to 13 years to life in
prison. This includes a life sentence for the attempted murder of
Raymond plus three years for the great bodily injury
enhancement and 10 years for the firearm enhancement. As we
discuss post in connection with correcting a minor error, the
sentence the court imposed for the conspiracy to commit murder
conviction (as distinguished from the substantive attempted
murder convictions, one of which served as the basis for the
operative 13 years to life sentence) was stayed by the trial court
pursuant to section 654.

                         II. DISCUSSION
      Defendant contends the conspiracy conviction is not
supported by substantial evidence because there is no evidence of
an agreement between defendant and anyone else to kill the
victims. We hold the surveillance video footage combined with
associated trial testimony is adequate to support the jury’s
finding that defendant and at least the vehicle’s driver formed
the requisite advance agreement, even if tacit, to kill the victims.
(See generally People v. Calhoun (1958) 50 Cal.2d 137, 144 [“It is
settled that a conspiracy may be established by direct evidence or
circumstantial evidence, or a combination of both. It need not be
shown that the parties entered into a definite agreement, but it is

3
      The trial court granted the prosecution’s motion to strike
defendant’s prior strike conviction in the interest of justice. The
verdict forms did not ask the jury to make a finding regarding the
great bodily injury allegation for one of the two counts as to
which it was alleged.

                                 5
sufficient if they positively or tacitly come to a mutual
understanding to accomplish the act and unlawful design”].)

      A.     Substantial Evidence Supports Defendant’s
             Conspiracy Conviction
      The crime of conspiracy “has four elements: (1) the
existence of an agreement between at least two persons; (2) the
specific intent to agree to commit an offense; (3) the specific
intent to commit the offense that is the object of the agreement;
and (4) an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, which may
be committed by any conspirator. [Citations.]” (People v. Ware
(2022) 14 Cal.5th 151, 163.) A person may be prosecuted for
conspiring with unknown co-conspirators. (People v. Roy (1967)
251 Cal.App.2d 459, 463.)
      With respect to the first element—the existence of an
agreement between defendant and at least one other person to
commit an offense—the agreement may be either express or tacit.
(People v. Maciel (2013) 57 Cal.4th 482, 515; Calhoun, supra, 50
Cal.2d at 144.) No direct evidence is required, and “such
agreement must often be proved circumstantially.” (People v.
Homick (2012) 55 Cal.4th 816, 870.) “‘“The existence of a
conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct, relationship,
interests, and activities of the alleged conspirators before and
during the alleged conspiracy.”’ [Citations.]” (Maciel, supra, at
515-516.)
      Here, the video showing defendant exiting and re-entering
the small black vehicle through a passenger door reveals someone
else was driving. The video also shows that seconds after passing
the victims’ car, the driver stopped at a stop sign for an extended

                                6
period for no discernible reason.4 There was then a further brief
delay after the black vehicle parked and before defendant got out
of the vehicle and walked to where the shooting occurred. These
delays gave defendant and the driver ample opportunity to form
the requisite plan to kill. (See, e.g., People v. Jurado (2006) 38
Cal.4th 72, 121 [citing evidence that the defendant and co-
conspirators “were alone together . . . shortly before [a] killing,
during which a discussion and agreement could have taken
place”].)
       Additional circumstances support the jury’s finding of an
advance agreement to kill. When the driver of the black vehicle
turned the corner and stopped along the curb, the video evidence
suggests the driver had no intention of stopping for long: the
driver did not exit the vehicle, the driver was apparently
unconcerned about blocking a driveway, and, when defendant
came running back, the vehicle was still running and the
passenger door was opened for him before he reached the vehicle.5
Especially when these circumstances are combined with the
evidence of defendant’s Park Village Compton Crips affiliation
and the location of the shooting in rival Compton Varrio 155

4
      Defendant suggests this pause may be explained by the
presence of a pedestrian “on the corner across the street . . . .”
But the pedestrian was at the only corner of the intersection from
which they would not interfere with the vehicle’s left turn by
crossing the street.
5
       The record also provides no reason to think the vehicle’s
driver would have been unable to hear the six shots defendant
fired around the corner from where they stopped—less than a
minute away by foot—before defendant came running back to the
vehicle.

                                7
territory, the jury had a proper basis to find beyond a reasonable
doubt that defendant and the driver agreed on a plan to kill the
victims, with the driver being ready to make a quick getaway.6
(Jurado, supra, 38 Cal.4th at 121 [holding that a jury could infer
that the person driving the car in which the defendant killed
someone conspired in the murder because, among other things,
“she did not separate herself from [the] defendant”].)
       Defendant does not dispute that the other elements of a
conspiracy to commit murder are satisfied, and for good reason.
Both his specific intent to kill and the commission of overt acts
toward that object are established by the same facts—his firing
several shots at an occupied vehicle in territory claimed by a rival
gang, striking one of the occupants, and fleeing—as his
convictions for attempted murder that are not challenged on
appeal. (People v. Canizales (2019) 7 Cal.5th 591, 602 [“To prove
the crime of attempted murder, the prosecution must establish
‘the specific intent to kill and the commission of a direct but
ineffectual act toward accomplishing the intended killing’”];
Ware, supra, 14 Cal.5th at 164 [“Even if the prosecution had
presented no evidence of any other overt act, the attempted
murder conviction of an alleged coconspirator in furtherance of

6
       Defendant argues the driver may not have known he was
armed because he did not draw his gun until just before he fired
on the victims. But the fact that defendant kept the gun
concealed until ready to fire while outside the vehicle on foot in a
rival gang’s territory says nothing about whether he had it
concealed while inside the vehicle. Moreover, nothing in the
video footage or trial testimony gives any reason to believe the
driver was surprised by hearing the gunshots that rang out
before defendant came running back to the vehicle.

                                 8
the conspiracy is sufficient to show the overt act element has
been satisfied”].) We shall therefore affirm the conspiracy
conviction.

      B.     The Abstract of Judgment Must Be Corrected
      In its oral pronouncement of defendant’s sentence, the trial
court imposed but stayed, pursuant to section 654, a sentence of
25 years to life in prison on the conspiracy to commit murder
charge. This is not reflected in the abstract of judgment, which
indicates this sentence is consecutive. Because, as the parties
agree, the oral pronouncement controls (People v. Zackery (2007)
147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385), we will order preparation of a
corrected abstract of judgment.

                                 9
                          DISPOSITION
      The clerk of the superior court shall prepare an amended
abstract of judgment that indicates defendant’s sentence on count
one (conspiracy to commit murder) was stayed pursuant to
section 654. The court shall deliver the amended abstract to the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other
respects, the judgment is affirmed.

   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                      BAKER, Acting P. J.

We concur:

     MOOR, J.

     KIM, J.

                               10