People v. Bello CA4/1

Filed 11/25/24 P. v. Bello CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D082646

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD293899)

ALEX JOSHUA BELLO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Runston G. Maino, Judge. Affirmed. Lindsey M. Ball, 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, Collette C. Cavalier and Kathryn Kirschbaum, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. After Sebastian S. vandalized Alex Joshua Bello’s car, Bello—with whom Sebastian had a quarrelsome relationship—fired gunshots at Sebastian and his occupied car. A jury convicted Bello of multiple counts,

including, as relevant here, shooting at an occupied vehicle (Pen. Code, § 246; count 1) and assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2); count 2), along with an enhancement for personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.5(a)). The court sentenced Bello to an aggregate prison term of seven years and eight months. On appeal, Bello claims these convictions must be reversed because the trial court admitted improper character evidence that, two days before the shooting, Bello brandished a firearm at Sebastian. Alternatively, he claims the trial court abused its discretion as the evidence was unduly prejudicial under Evidence Code section 352. We conclude the evidence was properly admitted as probative of motive and thus identity because it gave the jury helpful context about the relationship between Bello and Sebastian that supported Sebastian’s claim he heard and saw Bello at the scene. Nor did the trial court abuse its wide discretion under section 352 when it found the probative value not substantially outweighed by any danger of undue prejudice. As the court did not err in admitting the evidence, we affirm the judgment. I. A. In 2021, Bello and Sebastian were in a dating relationship, but they had a falling out when Bello stole from Sebastian. Bello stopped responding to Sebastian’s text messages. Three to four months later, Sebastian saw Bello in their neighborhood. Sebastian tried to talk to Bello, but Bello jumped in his car and drove off. Later that day, Sebastian saw Bello again while driving. Sebastian tried to talk to him, but Bello again drove off. Sebastian followed Bello and blocked Bello’s car with his own. Bello swore and yelled at Sebastian “to get out of the way” before pulling out a handgun and pointing it at him.