Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People v. Alejandro Madrid

December 27, 2012

THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
ALEJANDRO MADRID, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.



(Super. Ct. No. SF107607A)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Blease , Acting P. J.

P. v. Madrid

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

A jury found defendant Alejandro Madrid guilty of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211)*fn1 and receiving a stolen motor vehicle, to wit the getaway car used in the robbery (§ 496d, subd. (a)). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true allegations defendant had two prior serious or violent felony convictions. (§§ 1170.12, subd. (b), 667, subds. (a) and (d).) The trial court sentenced defendant to 25 years to life for the robbery and a concurrent 25 years to life for receiving a stolen motor vehicle, stayed pursuant to section 654.

Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that his conviction for receiving a stolen motor vehicle must be reversed because there is insufficient evidence he knew the car, in which he was merely a passenger, was stolen, or that he had possession of it. We agree and shall reverse the judgment as to that offense.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Shortly before 6:00 p.m. on March 5, 2008, Delores Pfaff and her daughter drove Pfaff's 1981 Oldsmobile to the Food King grocery store to pick up some boxes. Pfaff left the keys in the ignition. When they returned a short time later, the car was gone. A witness reported seeing a "Mexican female" drive away in the car.

The following afternoon, defendant entered the Bank of Agriculture and Commerce, walked up to a teller window, and demanded money.*fn2 He had a toy gun sticking out of his pants and was wearing what appeared to be a fake beard. After tellers provided defendant with approximately $6,000, he left the bank with a handful of money, ran down the street, and got into the passenger side of Pfaff's missing Oldsmobile, which was driven by Jimmy Narvaez.

After receiving a report of the robbery and the Oldsmobile's location, police located the car and followed it into a parking lot, where it pulled into a parking space. A police officer saw Narvaez outside the car and ordered him to get down on the ground. The officer did not see where defendant had gone. A witness observed defendant throwing money and some clothing under a nearby car. Shortly thereafter, officers saw defendant and another man running down a nearby street. Both were detained. Defendant told officers he did not know the other man.

The Food King, near where Pfaff's car was taken, is located in the same shopping center as the methadone clinic frequented by Pfaff's daughter, defendant, and Narvaez. Pfaff's daughter knew defendant "from years ago" and the two were "reacquainted" at the clinic; she also had seen Narvaez there but did not know him or his name. The clinic is open from 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Sometimes clients of the clinic, including Pfaff's daughter and defendant, hung out at the clinic after receiving "their dose." Pfaff's daughter did not think defendant had any idea the Oldsmobile belonged to her mother. Pfaff's daughter did not drive that car.

DISCUSSION

"In assessing a claim of insufficiency of evidence, the reviewing court's task is to review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence -- that is, 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. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 11.) Under this standard, the court does not " ' "ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." [Citation.] Instead, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.