People v. Gaines CA2/8

Filed 11/7/13 P. v. Gaines CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B245974

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA056644) v.

RODNEY LOUIS GAINES,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Richard E. Naranjo, Judge. Affirmed.

Marilee Marshall, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Pamela C. Hamanaka, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

**********

A jury found defendant and appellant Rodney Louis Gaines guilty of second degree burglary and simple assault. He appeals, contending there is insufficient evidence supporting his conviction for burglary, specifically no evidence showing an intent to commit a felony upon entering the business establishment where the incident occurred. We conclude there is substantial evidence in the record supporting the judgment of conviction and therefore affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND At around 11:00 p.m. on June 24, 2012, Luis Gomez-Alcala (Alcala) was working as a cashier at a gas station on West Avenue K in Lancaster. The gas station included a small convenience store selling drinks, cigarettes, snacks and similar items. Mr. Alcala was inside the store assisting a customer when the customer told him there was a man outside near the gas pumps asking for money and bothering the customers. Part of Mr. Alcala’s assigned job duties was to tell panhandlers at the station to leave the premises. After the customer finished paying, Mr. Alcala went outside and saw defendant near the gas pumps. Defendant had a black backpack, as well as a bicycle with several bags on it. Mr. Alcala told defendant to stop “molest[ing] my customer[s];” that if he did not stop he would have to call the police or he would get in trouble with his manager. Defendant responded calmly, said “okay” and left the premises. After some time had passed, two more customers complained there was a man bothering them outside and asking for money. Mr. Alcala looked out the window and saw that defendant had returned and was again by the gas pumps. He again went outside and told defendant to leave. Defendant was angry, spoke in a loud voice and mocked Mr. Alcala. Mr. Alcala raised his voice as well and reiterated that he had to leave. Mr. Alcala then went back inside the store, but saw that defendant still had not left. He went back outside and told defendant he had to go. Defendant “was more aggressive. . . . He [got] madder.” Defendant told Mr. Alcala he was only trying to get money to eat and Mr. Alcala had no right to tell him to leave or call the police. Defendant eventually left