People v. Villalobos CA2/4

Filed 7/30/14 P. v. Villalobos CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B249485

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA097714) v.

CARLOS YUVINI VILLALOBOS,

Defendant and Appellant.

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

The jury convicted defendant Carlos Villalobos of second degree robbery and second degree commercial burglary. In this appeal from the judgment, we conclude the convictions are supported by substantial evidence, and we affirm. On January 24, 2012, a man entered a 7-Eleven store and took a case of beer without paying for it. He ran out of the store and ignored a store employee’s shouts to come back. The store posted the man’s photograph, which was taken from a surveillance videotape, on the wall behind the cash register. Two months later, a detective with the Baldwin Park Police Department, Julio Alvarez, saw the picture on the wall of the store and thought the man in the photo resembled defendant, a suspect in another case. Alvarez knew that defendant had been accused by an acquaintance, Jesse Lepe, of taking his silver chain and pendant by force. In order to determine whether defendant was the person who committed the 7- Eleven burglary, Alvarez showed the store employee who witnessed the crime, Rodil Velasco, a photo lineup that included defendant’s photograph.1 Velasco selected defendant’s photograph and identified him as the person who had stolen the case of beer from the store. Defendant was charged with second degree robbery as to Lepe, and second degree commercial burglary as to the 7-Eleven store. (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 459.)2 At trial, Lepe identified defendant as the acquaintance who had hit him several times before robbing him of a silver chain and pendant. Defendant’s friend, Mario Mercado, testified that he had confronted defendant, who was staying at his apartment, after finding a silver chain in the toilet at the apartment. According to Mercado’s testimony, the chain had a pendant with an Aztec calendar, which matched the description of the necklace stolen from Lepe. Mercado testified that when he confronted defendant about the necklace, defendant stated that he had done Mercado a favor by beating up Lepe and taking his chain. Mercado explained that defendant was trying to