People v. Alfaro CA6

Filed 10/22/15 P. v. Alfaro CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H040982 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1370636)

v.

JESSE ALFARO,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury convicted defendant Jesse Alfaro of three counts of second degree commercial burglary. The court sentenced him to serve two years in county jail pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h)(5)(A),1 and imposed various fines and fees. On appeal, defendant contends there is insufficient evidence to support one of the three convictions. He also maintains the trial court erroneously imposed a second restitution fine. We strike the second restitution fine and affirm the judgment as modified. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Defendant is Charged In an information filed on January 9, 2014, the Santa Clara County District Attorney charged defendant with three counts of second degree burglary (§§ 459, 460, subd. (b)). The information alleged that defendant entered the Washtime Laundromat with intent to commit theft on November 20, 21, and 29, 2013.

1 Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.

B. Evidence Adduced at Trial The case proceeded to a jury trial in March 2014. Over the course of three days, the following evidence was adduced. Savnish Aul testified that he and his wife, Shilpa, own the Washtime Laundromat. They monitor the laundromat using seven surveillance cameras. The footage from the cameras is available, in real-time, from their home television and cell phones. On November 21, 2013, Shilpa Aul called the police because she had observed a man taking money from one of the washing machines via surveillance camera footage. Both of the Auls testified that the coin box on that washing machine had been tampered with. San Jose Police Officer Jennifer Valosek responded to Shilpa Aul’s call on November 21, 2013. Officer Valosek testified that she collected surveillance footage from the laundromat for November 20 and 21. She viewed footage from November 21 and noted that the burglary suspect had facial hair and wore a jacket with two patches on it, one with the letters “EMT” and one that looked like a bull’s-eye. Officer Valosek was dispatched to the Washtime Laundromat again on November 29, 2013. On her way, she recognized the suspect from the surveillance video standing in the doorway of a liquor store; he was wearing the distinctive jacket from the November 21, 2013 video. Officer Valosek stopped the man, who she identified in court as defendant. She searched defendant and found 14 quarters and a folding knife. Washtime Laundromat surveillance videos from November 20, 21, and 29, 2013, were shown at trial. The videos show footage from one of the laundromat’s seven cameras, so the entire laundromat is not visible. The footage from November 20, 2013, shows defendant enter the laundromat at 20:27:10 wearing the jacket with the EMT and bull’s-eye patches. He walks to the washing machine in the foreground of the frame, which is at the end of a row of top- loading washing machines. No one else is visible in the frame. Each machine has a coin 2