People v. Hernandez CA2/8

Filed 1/23/14 P. v. Hernandez CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B244019

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA124498) v.

JESSE HERNANDEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Dewey L. Falcone, Judge; Lori Ann Fournier, Judge. Affirmed.

John Doyle, 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, Victoria B. Wilson and Brendan Sullivan, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________

Defendant and appellant Jesse Hernandez appeals from his conviction of receiving stolen property. He contends it was error to deny: (1) his Penal Code section 1538.5 motion and (2) his Pitchess motion.1 We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The issues on appeal do not require a detailed recitation of the facts. It is sufficient to state that, viewed in accordance with the usual rules on appeal (People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357-358), the evidence established that Gustavo Villegas’s cell phone was taken without his permission by an unknown person sometime in 2009. Three years later, on the evening of April 2, 2012, an unknown person took five UPS boxes addressed to Robert Sanchez, which had been sitting on the front porch of Sanchez’s Montebello home. Villegas’s cell phone and three of Sanchez’s five UPS boxes were found the next day in a shed located in the backyard of defendant’s family home. The home was owned by defendant’s grandfather, Robert Acosta. Then 32 years old, defendant lived there with his grandfather, mother and girlfriend; Acosta’s three granddaughters and one great-grandchild also lived in the home. Acosta had given defendant permission to use the backyard shed in which the stolen goods were found, but had since rescinded that permission. Without Acosta’s authorization, defendant had placed a lock on the shed to which he had not given Acosta a key. On April 3, Acosta called 911 after a fight with defendant about, among other things, defendant’s failure to take his things out of the shed. When Deputy Ramirez responded to a “family disturbance” report at Acosta’s home, Acosta told Ramirez he suspected that defendant was storing stolen goods in the shed. Ramirez reported Acosta’s suspicions to Detectives Escobedo and Valenzuela, who went to Acosta’s home that afternoon to investigate the stolen goods report. Acosta consented to a search of the shed and used his own bolt