People v. Rangel CA2/5

Filed 7/14/14 P. v. Rangel CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B251902

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA406186) v.

NELSON RANGEL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Terry A. Bork, Judge. Affirmed. Ann Krausz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. ——————————

FACTUAL BACKGROUND On approximately December 14, 2012, at 7:00 a.m., Betty Hunyh was preparing to take her 17-year-old daughter to school. Hunyh was in her 1996 Lexus with the engine running in the driveway of her home in Montebello. Hunyh got out of the car to go inside her house to get her driver’s license and her daughter. Hunyh had left her car running, and when she returned less than five minutes later, the car was gone. Hunyh’s daughter called the police. Deputy Sheriff Andrew Hernandez was on patrol in his marked vehicle with his partner Deputy Raymond Mendoza at approximately 6:30 p.m. on December 27, 2012, when he observed a 1996 Lexus matching the description of Hunyh’s stolen vehicle. The car was driving slowly in the opposite direction and Deputy Mendoza shone his light on it. Deputy Hernandez got a good look at defendant, who was driving, and there was a woman in the passenger seat. Defendant had a shaved head, and was wearing a black jacket and a flannel checkered shirt. The car sped away and turned right. Deputy Hernandez heard a crash and when he pulled up to the car, he saw that it had crashed into another car. No one was in the car. Deputy Mendoza observed defendant and the female occupant of the car running away, and he saw them run into the driveway of an apartment complex. Deputy Hernandez called for a containment area. About five to seven minutes later, he learned that defendant had been detained, and went to the location where defendant was detained and identified defendant. Deputy Hernandez was “100 percent sure” of his identification of defendant as the driver of the Lexus. Deputies were unable to locate the female passenger of the car. Deputy Julio Aguirre apprehended defendant because defendant matched the description of the individual who had fled from a stolen vehicle. Defendant was running. Defendant did not have any bruises or injuries on him. An expert in witness identification testified that eyewitness identification even under the best of circumstances was “as reliable as . . . flipping a coin.” The human eye is