People v. Rosel CA4/3

Filed 2/26/14 P. v. Rosel 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G048976

v. (Super. Ct. No. 07NF2702)

MAURILLO IVAN ROSEL, JR., OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jonathan S. Fish, Judge. Affirmed. Maurillo Ivan Rosel, Jr., in pro. per.; and Jeffrey S. Kross, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

We are not surprised to have Maurilio Ivan Rosel, Jr.,back again. The first time he appealed his conviction for committing the 2007 crimes, we reversed the true finding on the gang enhancement for lack of substantial evidence, and the second time he appealed, we reversed his conviction for street terrorism. He started out with a sentence of 22 years in state prison, and now has his sentence down to 12 years. All in all, he hasn’t done badly in this court. Alas, the third time is not always a charm. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed a brief which set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against the client, but advised the court no issues were found to argue on defendant’s behalf. Defendant was given 30 days to file written argument in defendant’s own behalf. Defendant did file a brief and we have reviewed it. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel stated that “in order to assist the court in conducting its independent review of the record, appellant noted the following grounds for appeal in his notice of appeal [citation] (1) the trial court erred in denying the original motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5; (2) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for robbery; (3) there was insufficient evidence to support the firearm enhancements, insofar as the police ‘put a weapon taken of someone else[’]s case to [appellant’s] case’; and (4) incriminating evidence (clothing matching the suspect’s description) was placed on appellant’s ‘corporeal body for the express purpose of obtaining a positive identification by the victim/witness at an in-field show-up.’” In one of our earlier opinions in this matter (People v. Rosel (Jan. 26, 2012, G044481) [nonpub. opn.]) we included the following facts: “The Crime “On July 25, 2007 at around 8:15 a.m., Jesus Garcia was walking to work along Mitchell Avenue in Tustin when a car stopped next to him and ‘the person got out of the car with a hand gun, pistol in his hand, and he threatened’ Garcia. Garcia testified: