People v. Patel CA4/1
Filed 1/16/25 P. v. Patel CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D083132
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN441900) SHAAF PATEL,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Laura E. Duffy, Judge. Affirmed. Thien Huong Tran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistance Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Robin Urbanski and Laura Baggett, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. A jury convicted Shaaf Patel of one count of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subdivision (a)). Patel moved for a new trial, contending that his counsel was ineffective. The court denied the motion.
Patel appeals, contending his trial counsel refused to let him testify at his trial and therefore the court erred in denying his motion. We find the court’s error was harmless and affirm. STATEMENT OF FACTS After a burglary at IQHQ, a commercial establishment that had been undergoing renovations, law enforcement learned that Brandy Ruiz was using a credit card that had been taken during the burglary. During a search of Ruiz’s cell phone, officers discovered Patel’s cell phone number and a video of Patel and Ruiz with items that had been taken during the burglary, including laptops, monitors and televisions, and moving them from a shipping container into Patel’s car. Ruiz inventoried the items in Patel’s car: “So two Samsung, one Dell, two laptops, I mean, two keyboards, and seven laptops. Cool.” Patel and Ruiz discussed that the laptops were worth “two grand” and that Ruiz’s boyfriend, Dustin Greear, “wants to try to get at least half.” Patel stated that Greear told Patel to “sell ‘em for half’ ” and then split the proceeds with Greear. In the video, after loading the car, Patel and Ruiz went inside the shipping container, which contained additional boxes of electronics as well as bottles of liquor. Patel opened a box that contained sports trading cards and commented on their value. Ruiz agreed and said that she had told Greear, “Babe, good news, we can finally move!” Patel and Ruiz also discussed that the cards were “worth about a thousand to two thousand dollars, easily.” Ruiz explained that “[a]nd what’s funny, too, is we didn’t even realize when we got these that that’s what it was . . . we thought it was more laptops. Then we opened it.” When Patel asked Ruiz how Greear found the “spot,” Ruiz explained that Greear went to “a construction site” where “the door happened to be unlocked, and boom. He was like, ‘Ah!’ ”
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)