People v. Schneider CA3

Filed 2/9/15 P. v. Schneider CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C075279

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 13F04565)

v.

CURTIS B. SCHNEIDER,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Curtis B. Schneider guilty of unlawfully taking and driving a vehicle and of driving without a valid driver’s license. The court found true that defendant had five prior convictions involving “theft-related crimes,” and that he had served four separate prior prison terms. The court sentenced defendant to county jail for eight years. On appeal, defendant’s sole contention is the trial court prejudicially erred in instructing pursuant to CALCRIM No. 361 that the jury could draw adverse inferences from his failure to explain or deny matters asserted to be within his knowledge. We affirm.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On July 19, 2013, at 7:20 a.m., police officers from the Sacramento Police Department’s auto theft unit parked a bait car on a street in Sacramento. The bait car, a 1999 Acura, was equipped with electronic devices, including a GPS, which alerted the officers to anyone tampering with the car and permitted the officers to locate the car if it was driven off. The bait car was also equipped with internal audio/video devices. The information from the devices was transmitted to a police communication center, where it was logged into the computer aided dispatching (CAD) system. The officers left the bait car with its keys in the ignition and the doors unlocked. At 11:17 a.m. that same morning, officers at the communication center were alerted that someone had entered the bait car and turned on the ignition. Officers were dispatched to locate the bait car, which they did, and followed it into a grocery store parking lot. There, an officer remotely disabled the bait car’s engine and arrested the driver, who was defendant. The video in the bait car, which was played for the jury and which we have watched, shows that defendant was the only person driving the bait car from the time the video was first activated, i.e., 11:17 a.m., until he was arrested.1 Defendant testified that during the morning in question, he was walking to a convenience store when two persons, identifying themselves as Jeff and Jose, asked him if he wanted to buy an Acura that was parked nearby. Defendant asked what was the matter with the Acura, and was told there was nothing wrong with it mechanically, but that it was Jose’s car and “[h]e couldn’t have it in his name.” Defendant agreed to buy the Acura for $500. Defendant gave Jeff and Jose $250 and agreed to pay the remainder when they gave him the “papers for the vehicle.” Defendant got into the Acura and drove