People v. Meza CA4/3

California Court of Appeal Jan 5, 2026 No. G064628Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that sufficient evidence supported the defendant's robbery conviction, as the presence of his DNA as the sole source on the cash register key provided a reasonable basis for the jury's verdict despite defense theories of secondary transfer.

Issues

Whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for second degree robbery based on DNA evidence found at the crime scene.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We conclude substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict and therefore affirm the conviction.”

“[I]t is the jury, not the appellate court which must be convinced of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

“Accordingly, the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to support Meza’s robbery conviction.”

Filed 1/5/26 P. v. Meza CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G064628

v. (Super. Ct. No. 18WF2507)

JOSE GABRIEL MEZA, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jonathan S. Fish, Judge. Affirmed. John F. Schuck, 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, Melissa

Mandel and A. Natasha Cortina, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * * Defendant Jose Gabriel Meza was convicted of second degree robbery. On appeal, Meza contends the evidence was insufficient to sustain his robbery conviction. We reject Meza’s claim of error and affirm the conviction. STATEMENT OF FACTS In March 2018, Meza and an accomplice entered a smoke shop, wearing bandanas over their faces, hoodies, and gloves. One of the robbers, later identified using DNA evidence as Meza, swung at the shop owner but missed. He also appeared to be carrying a gun. Meza was captured on surveillance video removing cash from the cash register. While the robbery was in progress, the shop owner called 911. The transcript of the 911 call was entered into evidence at trial. The shop owner observed the robbers leaving the store and getting into a nearby car. The robbers stole $1,200 in cash and 20 cartons of cigarettes worth approximately $1,500. After police responded to the smoke shop, they collected evidence, including swabbing the cash register and the cash register key to obtain DNA. DNA samples were collected from the shop owner and from Meza. Meza’s DNA profile was found on the cash register key. Meza was charged with one count of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211)1 with an allegation of personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). The jury found Meza guilty of robbery but found the firearm

People v. Meza CA4/3

AI Brief

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

JOSE GABRIEL MEZA, OPINION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

MOTOIKE, ACTING P. J.

SANCHEZ, J.

AI Brief