Court Opinion

ID: 9947865
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-05 20:03:07.070707+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:28:38.687048
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/5/24 P. v. Ariza CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                      THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                     (Sacramento)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C098377

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    (Super. Ct. No. 22FE010270)

           v.

 JOSE FILIBERTO ARIZA,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant Jose Filiberto Ariza has asked this court to
conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable
issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) After reviewing the entire
record, we affirm the judgment.

                                                             1
                                     BACKGROUND
       The amended information charged defendant and his codefendant, Luis Avina,
with robbery (Pen. Code, § 211)1 and unlawful driving of a vehicle (Veh. Code,
§ 10851).2 The amended information alleged several aggravating circumstances under
California Rules of Court, rule 4.421.3
       The victim, K.L., parked her silver truck on a Sacramento street around 11:00 p.m.
K.L. was waiting to meet someone from an online dating application who failed to show
up.
       K.L. got out of the truck to smoke and two men approached her. One of the men
had a gun and demanded that K.L. give him her stuff. He said he had shot someone
earlier. The second man reached up and grabbed K.L.’s designer black purse from her
shoulder (which contained her keys) and took it. Then, the men ran away. K.L. tried to
follow them but could not keep up.
       When K.L. returned to where she parked her truck, she saw the truck driving away
but could not identify who was driving. K.L. called 911 to report the crimes.
       Officers responded to K.L.’s call at about 1:00 a.m. and took her report. Shortly
thereafter, an officer told K.L. they might have found her truck and drove K.L. to the
truck in West Sacramento.
       West Sacramento Police Officer Mitchell Williams spotted the truck at about 1:55
a.m. parked in a cul-de-sac near a Motel 6 in West Sacramento. This was about five
miles from where it was taken. Officer Williams watched codefendant Avina, and a
woman, C.H., get out of the driver’s side of the truck. When officers apprehended

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 The original information also alleged defendant had a prior conviction under the Three
Strikes Law that was later stricken on defendant’s motion.
3 Undesignated rule references are to the California Rules of Court.

                                            2
codefendant Avina, he had a BB gun in his front waistband that looked like a real
firearm.
       Officer Williams also saw defendant walking between the truck and a car parked
next to it and watched him get into the car. Officers located defendant and another man,
A.B., in that second car and took them into custody.
       K.L. testified she was able to identify codefendant Avina with 99 percent certainty
as the man with the gun but said she did not recognize the second man, A.B., presented to
her by the officers. K.L. identified defendant as the person she thought was the man who
took her purse, however, her level of certainty in that identification was only 50 percent.
       Officers returned a couple of duffel bags to K.L. that had been in the truck prior to
the robbery. One of the bags had a cigarette roller, a grinder, and a hair straightener.
K.L. never recovered her purse.
       At trial, K.L.’s testimony as to whether defendant was the person who took her
purse was confusing. She said her memory of what happened was better on the night of
the incident than it was in court.
       Sacramento Police Officer Summey responded to K.L.’s robbery report and took
K.L. from the scene of the crime to the truck to perform the field show up. Officer
Summey confirmed K.L. identified codefendant Avina as the person with a gun with 99
percent certainty and defendant as the other man with 50 percent certainty. Officer
Summey also confirmed K.L. was not certain A.B. was the second suspect.
       C.H. testified she was staying at the Motel 6 the night of the crime. Around 11:00
p.m., she saw a silver truck pull up in the parking lot across the street. Codefendant
Avina got out of the truck, came up to her, and asked to use her phone. While she had
never seen him before, she allowed him to use the phone. Shortly after that, defendant
got out of the truck, walked up, and Avina handed him the phone. As a gift for her
helping him, Avina gave C.H. a bag he took from the truck. That bag was one of the
duffel bags officers returned to K.L.

                                              3
       C.H. testified she accompanied the men in the truck to a gas station and the three
returned to the Motel 6 after 1:00 a.m. Avina and C.H. got out of the truck while
defendant stayed inside. That is when she was arrested.
       Surveillance footage from the Motel 6 parking lot placed Avina and another man
in that parking lot shortly after 11:00 p.m. on the night of the incident.
       In a recorded telephone call from the jail, defendant told an unidentified person
that he had good news that the victim could not recognize him.
       The jury convicted defendant on both counts.
       The trial court found true the aggravating factors under rules 4.421(b)(2) (prior
convictions are numerous or of increasing seriousness) and 4.421(b)(3) (defendant served
a prior prison term).
       The trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of five years for robbery. It
also imposed the middle term of two years for taking and driving the car but stayed that
term under section 654. The trial court imposed a $1,000 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), an
equal parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), and the minimum mandatory fees and fines.
       Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
                                       DISCUSSION
       We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening
brief that sets forth the procedural history of the case and requests this court to review the
record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende,
supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of his right to file a
supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. More than
30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.
       Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find
no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment.

                                              4
                                    DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                               /s/
                                              Ashworth, J.

We concur:

 /s/
Robie, Acting P. J.

 /s/
Duarte, J.

     Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                          5