Court Opinion

ID: 9804724
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 17:07:22.736719+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:17:50.806698
License: Public Domain

Filed 8/31/23 P. v. Wiley 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                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                          D081077

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.                                                         (Super. Ct. No. SCD293494)

 GARY JOE WILEY,

           Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Francis M. Devaney, Judge. Affirmed.
         Christine M. Aros, 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,
Steve Oetting and Paige B. Hazard, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff
and Respondent.
      A jury convicted Gary Joe Wiley of robbery (Pen. Code,1 § 211) and
found that he also personally used a firearm in committing the offense
(§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). Wiley contends on appeal that there is insufficient
evidence to support his robbery conviction. We disagree and affirm the
judgment.
              FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
      A. The Robbery
      Around 9:00 a.m. on the morning of August 23, 2021, security cameras
outside of American Legion on 47th Street in San Diego recorded a man
wearing a yellow reflective vest exiting a car parked across the street. He
walked up and down the street, returned to the car, and then meandered
towards the intersection in front of American Legion, drinking from a cup in
one hand and holding a white hard hat in the other. Around 10:03 a.m., he
walked north along 47th Street out of the camera’s view.
      A few minutes later around 10:06 a.m., security cameras at Sunrise
Market and Gas, located just north of American Legion along 47th Street,
recorded a man with the same physical appearance walking towards the gas
station while holding a white lidded coffee cup and a white hard hat. The gas
station footage, which provided a closer view of the man, showed that he wore
a neon yellow reflective vest, a blue neck gaiter around his neck, and a brown
camouflage head covering. As the man walked through the convenience store
holding the cup and hard hat, at one point he spilled liquid from the cup into
the hard hat and onto the floor. He wiped up the spill and threw the cup
away in a trash can near the store’s entrance.
      An external camera recorded the man leaving the gas station and
walking back south down 47th Street at around 10:09 a.m. Around that

1     All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
                                       2
same time, cameras at American Legion recorded a man with the same
physical appearance, in a yellow reflective vest and holding a white hard hat,
walking south on 47th Street. He returned to the parked car, and around
10:16 a.m., he walked towards American Legion.
      Meanwhile, D.C. arrived for work at American Legion around that
time, entering through the front door. Minutes later, the man in the yellow
vest tried unsuccessfully to enter American Legion through the front door
before circling around to the back of the building. At this point, the man’s
blue neck gaiter was pulled over the lower half of his face.
      D.C. watched the man try to enter American Legion’s front door from a
surveillance monitor feed in her office. She was not expecting anyone other
than a cleaning crew, and because she did not recognize the man, she did not
let him into the building. D.C. was in her office when she suddenly saw the
man standing in the doorway, pointing a gun at her face and demanding
money. Internal camera footage shows the man entered D.C.’s office around
10:21 a.m. wearing a neon yellow vest, a blue gaiter around the bottom part
of his face, and a brown camouflage head covering.
      The man kept the gun pointed at D.C. while she handed him cash from
American Legion’s safe. D.C. handed the man approximately $3,000, and
camera footage recorded the man leaving the building with the cash, jogging
to the same parked car he had arrived in, and driving away.
      B. The Investigation and Trial Evidence
      D.C. called 911 and police arrived on the scene minutes later around
10:35 a.m. D.C. described the suspect as a slim black male between 50 and
60 years old, wearing a mask and a fluorescent yellow-green reflective vest
over dark clothing. That same day, an investigating detective reviewed
footage from American Legion’s surveillance cameras. He observed from

                                       3
video footage recorded inside the office that the suspect had large blood
vessels on his right arm. The detective also noted that someone fitting the
suspect’s description had walked north along 47th Street shortly after
10:00 a.m., before the robbery occurred. After determining that the suspect
may have been walking to Sunrise Market and Gas, the detective went to the
gas station convenience store around 3:00 p.m. that same day and reviewed
footage from the station’s security cameras. When he observed that the
suspect had discarded a cup in the trash can, the detective immediately went
to the trash can and retrieved a white lidded Styrofoam cup which matched
the cup the suspect was holding in surveillance footage.
      The detective testified that the trash can contained “only a few items,”
and that the cup he retrieved was the only item in the trash that resembled
the cup in the surveillance video. He noted that the cup was white with a
brown oval logo, as depicted in surveillance footage. The convenience store
manager testified that the store does not offer white Styrofoam cups like the
one found in the trash can, and a photograph admitted at trial showed that
the gas station uses colorful cups with a different design.
      In October 2021, lab results showed that DNA swabbed from the cup
matched Wiley’s. The lab detected a single source of DNA from a swab of the
cup’s lid, taken from a location where one would drink. The investigating
detective alerted police that Wiley was wanted in connection with a pending
robbery investigation.
      Several months after the robbery in February 2022, a patrol officer
stopped Wiley for riding his motorcycle without a helmet. After conducting a
records check and discovering Wiley was wanted in connection with a crime,
the officer arrested Wiley and brought him to police headquarters. A search

                                       4
of Wiley’s motorcycle uncovered construction gear, including an orange
reflective vest and a yellow hard hat.
      The detective collected a DNA sample from Wiley’s mouth after his
arrest, and lab results later showed “very strong support” for a match
between Wiley’s DNA and the DNA swabbed from the cup found in the
convenience store trash can. A forensic expert testified that while it was
possible that DNA transferred onto the cup from another item in the trash,
such transfer was not likely here.
      The detective also noted after Wiley’s arrest that Wiley matched the
general description of the robbery suspect. The detective photographed
Wiley’s forearms after observing that he had “veins that were protruding in
his forearm” as the robbery suspect did.
      An investigator obtained call detail records associated with Wiley’s
phone number from the day of the robbery. Those records showed that on the
morning of the robbery, calls made from Wiley’s phone number connected
with cell towers located in the Mid-City area of San Diego, indicating his cell
phone was in that area. Shortly before the robbery, call records showed that
his cell phone was in American Legion’s vicinity at the same time the suspect
appeared on surveillance cameras outside of American Legion. Around
10:25 a.m., soon after the robbery occurred, Wiley’s number placed a call near
American Legion, and minutes later, call data indicated his cell phone was
moving away from the area. By 10:40 a.m., call data showed Wiley’s number
making calls from the Mid-City area again. Several of the calls placed from
Wiley’s number were made to a number associated with Wiley’s daughter.
      C. Other Witness Testimony
      Wiley’s former supervisor testified at trial that Wiley had worked in
construction for several years. In August 2021, the month of the robbery,

                                         5
Wiley was working at a construction site in Mid-City. But his supervisor was
not at the job site on the day of the robbery, and he did not personally see
Wiley that morning. According to pay stubs, Wiley’s work hours varied and
sometimes he worked 40 hours a week with overtime, while other weeks he
only worked 16 hours. Wiley had to wear a hard hat and reflective vest while
on the job, but workers could “wear any color they like.” His supervisor saw
Wiley drive both a car and a motorcycle “off and on” to work, and he said he
never saw Wiley with a firearm or large amounts of cash.
      Wiley’s girlfriend testified that he was working almost every day in
August 2021, except for Sundays. She said she never saw Wiley with a gun
in August 2021, nor did she see him bring large amounts of cash home. But
she was not with Wiley at the time of the robbery.
      D. Verdict and Sentencing
      The People charged Wiley with robbery and alleged he personally used
a firearm in committing the robbery. The jury found him guilty of robbery
and found true the firearm allegation. The trial court denied Wiley’s motion
for a new trial, and after a bifurcated bench trial on alleged priors and
aggravating factors, the court struck the firearm enhancement and sentenced
him to 25 years to life in prison pursuant to the Three Strikes Law. (§ 667,
subd. (e)(2)(ii).) Wiley timely appealed.
                                 DISCUSSION
      Wiley contends there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction
for robbery under section 211. More specifically, he contends that no

                                       6
substantial evidence supports a finding that he is the person depicted in
surveillance videos robbing American Legion. We disagree.
      On review, we must “ ‘examine the entire record in the light most
favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial
evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—
that would support a rational trier of fact in finding [the defendant guilty]
beyond a reasonable doubt.’ [Citations.]” (People v. San Nicolas (2004) 34
Cal.4th 614, 657–658.) We will not reverse unless there is no hypothesis
upon which sufficient substantial evidence exists to support the conviction.
(People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331.) We must “presume in support of
the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce
from the evidence.” (People v. Jones (1990) 51 Cal.3d 294, 314.) “The same
standard applies when the conviction rests primarily on circumstantial
evidence.” (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053.) “An appellate court
must accept logical inferences that the jury might have drawn from the
circumstantial evidence.” (People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 396
(Maury).) “Given this deferential standard of review, a ‘defendant bears an
enormous burden in claiming there is insufficient evidence’ to support a
conviction.” (People v. Wear (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 1007, 1020.)
      We conclude that substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding that
Wiley committed the robbery. Camera recordings from American Legion and
the nearby gas station provided a nearly uninterrupted visual timeline of the
robbery suspect’s movements and physical appearance before, during, and
after the incident. Video footage first captured the suspect parking a car
near American Legion and walking around the area wearing a distinctive
yellow vest, drinking from a cup, and holding a white hard hat. The suspect
then walked north, where gas station cameras captured a closer view of him

                                       7
with the same yellow vest, cup, and white hard hat, as well as a blue neck
gaiter and brown camouflage head covering. The footage shows the suspect
discarding a white cup with a brown oval logo into the convenience store
trash can. The suspect then walked south into the view of the American
Legion cameras, which captured him returning to his parked car briefly
before making his way into American Legion. The video inside the office
clearly shows a man wearing a reflective neon yellow vest, a blue neck gaiter,
and a brown camouflage head covering, all of which matches what the
suspect wore when he was at the gas station. After departing American
Legion with the cash, the suspect then jogged to the same parked car he
arrived in.
        It was plainly reasonable for the jury to conclude, based on the
continuity of the video footage both geographically and chronologically, that
the suspect shown in the American Legion footage was the same individual
featured in the gas station videos. The suspect wore the same distinctive
clothing and traveled a path that corresponded directly with the locations
surveilled by both sets of cameras. Furthermore, there is no evidence that
anyone in American Legion’s vicinity or in the convenience store around the
time of the robbery was similarly dressed or matched the suspect’s general
appearance, such that the suspect might have been confused with someone
else.
        It was thus also reasonable for the jury to conclude that the DNA from
the cup in the convenience store trash can, which matched Wiley’s DNA,
belonged to the suspect. The trash can contained “only a few items,” and no
other item in the trash can was similar to the cup the suspect was holding in
surveillance footage. The cups in the store had a different design, making it
unlikely that the cup in evidence came from another individual in the store.

                                         8
The detective retrieved the cup mere hours after the robbery, and there is no
evidence suggesting that the trash can was emptied in the time between
when the suspect discarded his cup and when the detective found the cup
bearing Wiley’s DNA. Furthermore, a forensic expert testified it was unlikely
that Wiley’s DNA somehow transferred onto the cup from another item in the
trash can.
      The call detail records associated with Wiley’s phone number further
support the conclusion that he was near American Legion when the robbery
occurred. The fact that calls were made from Wiley’s number to his daughter
indicate that he was the person making those calls. The records also show
that his phone was in Mid-City before and after the robbery, which is
consistent with his former supervisor’s testimony that Wiley was working at
a construction site in Mid-City that month.
      Wiley cites cases in which courts found insufficient evidence to support
a conviction where the only link between the defendant and the crime scene
was fingerprint evidence. (See, e.g., Mikes v. Borg (9th Cir. 1991) 947 F.2d
353, 355–356 [insufficient evidence where case “rested exclusively upon the
fact” that defendant’s fingerprints were found among 46 other fingerprints at
the crime scene]; People v. Johnson (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 850, 856
[fingerprint on container insufficient to show possession of contraband];
People v. Jenkins (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 579, 584–585 [same]; Birt v. Superior
Court (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 934, 937–938 [fingerprint on cigarette lighter in
rental vehicle insufficient to bind defendant over for trial in burglary case].)
But those cases are distinguishable because there is far more evidence
beyond DNA connecting Wiley to the robbery. Surveillance footage and
witness testimony showed that Wiley matched the suspect’s physical
description. That same footage connected the cup itself, and the DNA found

                                        9
on the lid, directly to the robbery suspect. Wiley’s former supervisor testified
that Wiley was working in construction at the time of the robbery, and
Wiley’s call detail records also placed him at or near the scene when the
robbery occurred.
      Although a different color hat and vest were found in Wiley’s
motorcycle at the time of his arrest, that difference could be explained by the
fact that his arrest occurred several months after the robbery, and that his
former supervisor allowed him to wear any color protective gear of his
choosing. Moreover, a reasonable jury could conclude that the hat and vest
were consistent with Wiley working in construction, which supports an
inference that he also wore construction gear at the time of the robbery.
      Accepting the logical inferences that the jury might have drawn from
the evidence, we conclude there is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s
finding that Wiley committed the robbery at American Legion. (Maury,
supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 396.)
                                DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed.

                                                               BUCHANAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

DATO, Acting P. J.

CASTILLO, J.

                                       10