People v. Hinojos CA2/8

Filed 2/19/16 P. v. Hinojos CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B262317

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA133739) v.

DAVID HINOJOS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Kelvin D. Filer, Judge. Affirmed.

Doreen B. Boxer and Dee Hayashi, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey and Robert M. Snider, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ______________________

Defendant David Hinojos was charged by information with assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2); count 1), being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); count 2), and shooting at an occupied motor vehicle (§ 246; count 3), with prior prison term and prior conviction allegations, as well as a firearm enhancement (§§ 1170, subds. (h) & (h)(3), 1170.12, 667, subd. (a)(1), 667.5, subd. (b), 12022.5, subds. (a), (d)). He was convicted by jury of counts 1 and 2, the firearm enhancement was found true, and defendant admitted the prior conviction allegations; count 3 was dismissed after the jury was unable to reach a verdict. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted a photograph of his gang tattoo, and that the error also had the consequence of denying him a fair trial. Defendant also contends the court erroneously and prejudicially denied his request for a limiting instruction to guide the jury’s consideration of the photograph. Finding no merit in either of these contentions, we affirm the judgment of conviction. FACTS On the afternoon of June 10, 2014, N.W. drove to a Lynwood shopping center to pick up a T-shirt. As she was looking for a parking space, a white Toyota Corolla pulled away from the curb into traffic and nearly struck her vehicle. The car’s female driver was arguing with her male passenger, defendant.1 In shock, N.W. stopped her car. Defendant got out of the Corolla and walked up to N.W.’s open passenger window. Defendant yelled at N.W., calling her a b----. He had “extremely short” hair, and was wearing a white T-shirt and blue jeans. Defendant got back into the Corolla and it drove away. N.W. followed the white Corolla for a short distance instead of completing her errand. She called 911 and tried to read the license plate number to the operator. The Corolla stopped, and N.W. stopped as well. Defendant got out of the passenger side of