Court Opinion

ID: 9403819
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 19:05:11.025197+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:09.462103
License: Public Domain

Filed 6/21/23 P. v. Garcia 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                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,
                                                                                             F084328
             Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                                (Super. Ct. No. CRF63381)
                    v.

 MARIO AMARAL GARCIA,                                                                     OPINION
             Defendant and Appellant.

                                                   THE COURT*
         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County. Kevin M.
Seibert, Judge.
         Law Office of Martin Baker and Martin Baker for Defendant and Appellant.
         Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
                                                        -ooOoo-
                                 STATEMENT OF APPEALABILITY
         This appeal is from a final judgment following a jury trial and is authorized by
Penal Code section 1237, subdivision (a).1

         *   Before Levy, Acting P. J., Smith, J. and Snauffer, J.
         1   All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
                             STATEMENT OF THE CASE
       On May 17, 2021, appellant Mario Amaral Garcia was arraigned on an
information alleging that he, along with codefendant Angelica Armendariz, committed a
first-degree burglary (§ 459, count 1).
       Following a jury trial during which neither Garcia’s or Armendariz’s trial counsel
presented an opening statement or any evidence, both Garcia and Armendariz were both
found guilty as charged.2
       Garcia filed a motion for a new trial, claiming that his speedy trial rights were
violated, appointed counsel was ineffective for not fully developing a defense before trial,
and the verdict was unsupported by the evidence. Garcia’s motion was denied and, on
April 8, 2022, he was placed on two years formal probation and ordered to serve six
months in county jail with 46 days custody credit and 46 days conduct credit, followed by
five months of electronic home detention.
       On May 11, 2022, Garcia filed a timely notice of appeal.
                               STATEMENT OF FACTS
       T.H. lived in a combined commercial and residential property known as
“Ferndale” on Highway 120 in Tuolumne County. The main building on the property
was a former bar and restaurant with T.H.’s living quarters taking up the second story.
       Around 11:00 a.m. on May 10, 2020, T.H. set off to his friend B.P.’s farm a few
miles away. Before he left, he secured a locked cable across his driveway, and locked the
main building, as well as a tool room and a storage container located on the property.
       While at B.P.’s farm, T.H. called Tuolumne County Sheriff’s Deputy Eric
Worthington to provide him with information about a recent burglary at Ferndale.
Because Deputy Worthington was close by, he went to the farm to meet with T.H. in

       2 However, both defense counsel engaged in extensive cross-examination of the
witnesses, and also made closing arguments. Both defendants personally advised the
court that they did not wish to testify after being advised of their rights.

                                             2.
person. Just as Deputy Worthington arrived, B.P.’s son told T.H. that he had just heard
that the front door at Ferndale was wide open, as was the door to the storage container,
and there was a Ford pickup truck with a trailer on the property. T.H. passed this
information on to Deputy Worthington who turned his car around and headed directly to
Ferndale, followed by T.H., B.P., and B.P.’s son.
       When they all arrived at Ferndale, they stopped about 75 feet from the main
building. A barrier put in place by T.H. had been moved out of the way, and there was a
pickup truck with a trailer backed up by the storage container. As Deputy Worthington
and T.H. got out of their cars, a female came out of the front door of the main building
with items in her hands and one of T.H.’s hats on her head. When Deputy Worthington
told her to put down the items and approach with her hands up, she ran around the back
of the building. Around the same time, T.H. saw a male looking out of the upstairs living
room window. The male hurried away from the window after Deputy Worthington made
announcements on his loudspeaker. Deputy Worthington then took a position closer to
the building and waited for backup.
       While waiting for more deputies to arrive, T.H. heard the sound of people rustling
through the brush on the hillside behind the property. When more deputies arrived and
looked around the property, it became apparent that several items had been taken from
the storage container, the tool room, and the residence. Several items from the storage
container had been placed in the back of the pickup truck. A purse
containing Armendariz’s phone and driver’s license was found inside the truck.
       After about two and a half hours, law enforcement left the scene. T.H. then began
driving around the area on his own. After a short while, T.H. saw one male (later
identified as Garcia) walking downhill in the middle of the road. T.H. drove past him
and called the police.
       When Deputy Daniel West arrived at the location described by T.H., he saw
Garcia and Armendariz duck down behind some brush together in an apparent attempt to

                                            3.
conceal themselves. Deputy West got out of his car and called out to Garcia and
Armendariz, both of whom then stood up and walked toward them. Each of them had
scratches on their exposed skin.
       When T.H. drove back around, he saw the couple had already been detained, and
he continued to his home. He was then brought by law enforcement to the site of the
detention where he identified Garcia and Armendariz as the burglars, based primarily on
their clothing. T.H. also identified them as the burglars at trial.
                            APPELLATE COURT REVIEW
       Garcia’s appellate counsel has filed an opening brief that summarizes the pertinent
facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to review the record independently.
(People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) The opening brief also includes the
declaration of appellate counsel indicating Garcia was advised he could file his own brief
with this court. By letter on February 16, 2023, we invited Garcia to submit additional
briefing.
       In response to our invitation, Garcia filed a supplemental letter brief on March 20,
2023, which we have read and considered. However, he presents no issues that would
warrant relief on appeal.
       Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of
ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would result in a
disposition more favorable to Garcia.
                                       DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                              4.