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.

People v. Camel

California Court of Appeals, Third District, San Joaquin

February 21, 2017

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
PERCY LAMONTE CAMEL, Defendant and Appellant.

         CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION [*]

         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Joaquin County, No. SF114327A George J. Abdallah, Jr., Judge. Affirmed as modified.

          Mark Farbman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

          Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen and Christina Hitomi Simpson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

          NICHOLSON, Acting P. J.

         Defendant Percy Lamonte Camel killed two men in separate criminal incidents. Convicted of two counts of first degree murder and other crimes and sentenced to two consecutive indeterminate terms of life without the possibility of parole and other terms, he appeals.

         Defendant contends that the trial court erred by determining (1) he did not have standing to challenge a search of the trunk of a car parked on the front lawn of his residence and (2) his trial attorney violated his right to effective assistance of counsel by not proffering evidence of standing to the trial court in connection with the motion to suppress. Even assuming for the sake of argument that defendant had standing to challenge the search of the trunk of the car parked on his front lawn, the court's standing determination did not cause prejudice because the car's trunk was searched under authority of a search warrant. Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel argument is without merit for the same reason-absence of prejudice.

         Defendant also contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained by wiretap. Specifically, defendant asserts: (1) the court employed the wrong probable-cause test, (2) the court improperly sealed documents attached to the wiretap request, and (3) there was no probable cause supporting the wiretap authorization. We conclude: (1) the court employed the correct probable-cause test, (2) the court properly sealed the documents attached to the wiretap request, and (3) there was probable cause to support the wiretap authorization.

         In the unpublished part of this opinion, we address defendant's remaining contentions on appeal and find that some of them require modification of the judgment. We therefore modify the judgment and affirm it as modified.

         BACKGROUND

         Defendant committed the crimes mainly in two separate incidents: the Skyline incident in December 2009, and the USA Gas incident in February 2010.

         Skyline Incident

         On December 1, 2009, Roberto Hernandez drove his car, with his friends Alejandro Salazar and Jorge Sanchez as passengers, toward Red Sea Market in Stockton. On the way, they saw defendant in his distinctive purple Oldsmobile (also referred to in the record at times as a purple Buick), driving methodically up and down streets in the neighborhood. Hernandez and his friends believed defendant was looking for them and, desiring to avoid a confrontation with defendant, Hernandez and his friends drove to Sheba Liquors instead. When they arrived, however, defendant was already there in the parking lot.

         Still in his Oldsmobile, defendant leaned out of the driver's window and yelled, “I'm going to kill you all.” Hernandez drove out of the parking lot. While Hernandez drove, Sanchez fired a shot. Salazar did not know Sanchez was armed and was upset with him for firing. Salazar had known defendant for years. They played baseball and socialized together when they were younger, but their relationship had become confrontational, with defendant accusing Salazar of disrespecting him.

         In the afternoon of the same day, possibly about 30 minutes after the confrontation at Sheba Liquors, Hernandez dropped off his car at his home and went with Salazar, Sanchez, and other friends to Skyline Drive to drink sodas and smoke marijuana, while hiding from defendant. As Hernandez and Salazar were standing on the sidewalk, more than nine shots were fired in rapid succession from behind bushes on a nearby street corner. The gunman was African-American, in his early twenties, with the same build and complexion as defendant, and he was wearing what appeared to be the same hooded sweatshirt defendant was wearing when Hernandez, Salazar, and Sanchez encountered him at Sheba Liquors. As soon as the shots ceased, a car was heard fleeing the scene at a high rate of speed.

         Hernandez was shot in the pelvic and chest areas and bled to death. Salazar was shot in the left leg and left arm, which required surgery on his arm. He was in the hospital for two or three weeks.

         Thirteen shell casings from rounds shot from a semiautomatic pistol were found where the gunman had been.

         Salazar identified defendant as the gunman.

         USA Gas Incident

         During the evening of February 6, 2010, Francisco Bernardino, Raul Abundes, Jr., Vincente Cardenas, and other friends (including Jorge Sanchez, who was present during the Skyline incident) went together from Stockton to the Palladium Nightclub in Modesto. The same evening, defendant went to the Palladium Nightclub with Chris Padilla and others. At the nightclub, Cardenas punched Padilla.

         After the nightclub closed, both groups returned to Stockton. Defendant went to his house to get a gun, and drove around with his friends, looking for Cardenas. Bernardino dropped Cardenas off at his home and went to the USA Gas station with Abundes. They eventually parked next to the gas station.

         As they sat in the car around 4:00 a.m. on February 7, 2010, and while Abundes was showing Bernardino a photo of his grandfather who had recently passed away, two gunmen fired about 30 shots at them in rapid succession from behind the car. Bernardino was hit more than 15 times and died at the scene. Abundes was hit several times but survived.

         Twenty-four casings from a.30-caliber carbine rifle were found closely clustered behind the car, as well as a cluster of eight nine-millimeter casings.

         During the morning on the same day as the USA Gas shootings, defendant called Padilla and told him that he shot some friends of Cardenas. Defendant also told Padilla that he had committed the Skyline shooting. A male caller left a voicemail message on Cardenas's cell phone, saying, “Go pick up your boy at the gas station. I think he's dead. Ha ha ha ha.”

         Cell phone records showed that defendant's cell phone was in the area of both incidents when they occurred. And officers searching defendant's residence found a.30-caliber M1 carbine semiautomatic rifle in the trunk of a green Saturn on the front lawn. Testing established that the M1 rifle found at defendant's residence was used in the USA Gas shooting.

         Defendant was convicted by jury and sentenced by the court, as follows:

         Skyline Incident

         · Count 1: first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a))[1] of Roberto Hernandez, with a multiple-murder special circumstance (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3); life without the possibility of parole.

         o True findings on count 1:

         • Intentional and personal discharge of firearm causing death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)); consecutive 25 years to life.

         • Personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)); 10 years stayed.

         • Count 2: willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder of Alejandro Salazar (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)); consecutive 15 years to life.

         o True findings on count 2:

         • Intentional and personal discharge of firearm causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)); concurrent 25 years to life.

         • Personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)); 10 years stayed.

         • Count 3: Shooting at an inhabited dwelling (§ 246); concurrent seven years.

         o True finding on count 3:

         • Personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)); 10 years stayed.

         • Count 4: prohibited person in possession of a firearm (§ 12021, subd. (e)); consecutive three years.

         USA Gas Incident

         • Count 5: first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) of Francisco Bernardino, with a multiple-murder special circumstance (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3)); life without the possibility of parole.

         o True findings on count 5:

         • Intentional and personal discharge of firearm causing death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)); consecutive 25 years to life.

         • Personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)); 10 years stayed.

         • Personal use of an assault weapon (§ 12022.5, subd. (b)); consecutive 10 years.

         • Count 6: willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder of Raul Abundes (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)); consecutive 15 years to life.

         o True findings on count 6:

         • Intentional and personal discharge of firearm causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)); concurrent 25 years to life.

         • Personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)); 10 years stayed.

         • Personal use of an assault weapon (§ 12022.5, subd. (b)); concurrent 10 years.

         • Count 7: shooting at an occupied motor vehicle (§ 246); concurrent seven years.

         o True findings on count 7:

         • Intentional and personal discharge of firearm causing great bodily injury or death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)); concurrent 25 years to life.

         • Personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)); 10 years stayed.

         • Personal use of an assault weapon (§ 12022.5, subd. (b)); 10 years stayed.

         • Count 8: possession of an assault weapon (§ 12280, subd. (b)); three years stayed.

         • Count 9: prohibited person in possession of a firearm (§ 12021, subd. (e)); three years stayed.

         Additional Counts

         • Count 10: possession of an assault weapon (§ 12280, subd. (b)); three years stayed.

         • Count 11: prohibited person in possession of a firearm (§ 12021, subd. (e)); three years stayed.

         Additional factual and procedural background is included in the Discussion as relevant to the issues raised.

         DISCUSSION

         I

         Motion to Suppress

         Defendant contends that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the search of a vehicle in the front yard of his residence, and, if his claim fails for lack of standing, as the trial court concluded, his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated by his attorney, who failed to present evidence of standing. Neither contention has merit.

         A. Background

         Before trial, on August 12, 2011, defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search of a green Saturn located in the front yard of his residence. The search was based on two ...


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.