P. v. Pantoja-Ramirez CA1/4

Filed 8/7/13 P. v. Pantoja-Ramirez CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A135989 v. DANIEL PANTOJA-RAMIREZ, (Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCR291587) Defendant and Appellant.

Daniel Pantoja-Ramirez appeals from a judgment upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of permitting another to shoot a firearm from a vehicle, and obstructing or delaying a peace officer (Pen. Code, §§26100, subd. (b); 148, subd. (a)(1)). On appeal, defendant challenges the gang conditions of his probation. We modify the gang conditions, and otherwise affirm the judgment. I. FACTS On March 11, 2012 at approximately 9:30 p.m., Officer Kevin Carella was on patrol on Mankas between Abernathy and Rancho Solano Parkway in Fairfield. He heard several gunshots and saw muzzle flashes coming from defendant’s vehicle at Abernathy and Mankas. Defendant’s car made a U-turn and then was facing eastbound in Carella’s direction. It stopped for about 15 to 20 seconds; Carella heard five to six more gunshots. Defendant drove his car toward Carella and passed Carella’s vehicle. Carella followed defendant’s car and radioed for assistance. Once other police cars were behind Carella’s car, Carella effected a traffic stop. Defendant, however, did not immediately stop but traveled approximately 400 to 500 feet, and slowed to a stop or almost a complete stop.

1

A passenger in the car got out, threw a black bag over a residential fence, hopped the fence and took off running. Carella stopped to pursue the passenger while a backup unit pursued defendant. Officer Shackford activated his siren and pursued defendant’s car for about half a mile before defendant pulled over. When Shackford approached the car, he saw a spent casing on the back passenger floorboard and the handle of a baseball bat. In a search of the car, he found a Raiders’ beanie containing six live bullets inside the center console and a wooden claw hammer under the driver’s seat. The police also found spent casings in the area where Carella had observed that shots were fired. The expended bullet casing found in defendant’s car matched the casings found at the scene of the shooting. Defendant testified that on the evening of March 11, 2012, he was driving his friend, Juan, to his house. They decided to go to the Tower Market first. On the way, Juan pulled out a gun and started shooting out of the car. Defendant did not know that Juan had a gun and became angry. He decided to take Juan back to where he had picked him up and made a U-turn. Defendant testified that he then saw that he was being pursued by the police and when he slowed down, Juan jumped out of the car. Defendant did not know Juan’s last name. II. DISCUSSION Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing gang terms as a condition of probation. He argues that the evidence fails to show that he was currently a gang member or that the crime was related to gang activity. The Attorney General asserts that defendant forfeited his challenge to the gang conditions because he failed to object in the trial court.1 The failure to object to a condition of probation below waives any error on appeal. (People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 234–235 (Welch); People v. Gardineer (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 148, 151–