People v. Almanza CA2/6

Filed 3/3/16 P. v. Almanza CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B258565 (Super. Ct. No. 1434130) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

LUIS ALFREDO ALMANZA,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury convicted appellant of kidnapping for extortion (Pen. Code, § 209, subd. (a))1 and torture (§ 206) and found true weapons use and criminal street gang allegations (§§ 186.22, subd. (b)(4), 12022, subd. (b)(1), 12022.53, subds. (b), (e)). The trial court sentenced him to life without the possibility of parole plus a consecutive 11 years for the weapons use and gang enhancements. Appellant contends that evidence taken from his cell phone without a warrant should have been excluded and that the jury was improperly instructed that conspiracy is a basis for his criminal liability. We affirm.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

FACTS Appellant, a Sureño gang associate, worked for codefendant Raymond Macias, the Sureño “crew chief” in Santa Barbara County, and Juan Zavala, Macias’s “right-hand man.” He was an “enforcer” in Lompoc who helped collect “taxes,” i.e., a percentage of drug profits paid by Sureño-affiliated gangs in exchange for the ability to operate within their territory and, should members be arrested, protection in prison. Victim Stephen Mendibles was in charge of collecting taxes in Lompoc for the Sureños. Because “a lot of [his] homeboys were getting arrested” and becoming enemies, “it was hard for [him] to come up with the money.” Eventually, he “couldn’t do it anymore” and “just [lay] low.” Zavala told appellant to find Mendibles and “put him on a payment plan.” Appellant told Mendibles’ cousin Philip Lopez that Macias “wanted [Mendibles] bad . . . because he owed money.” He asked Lopez to find Mendibles and bring him to Ivan Rodriguez’s house, where appellant was staying. Lopez assumed they were going to “check” Mendibles, i.e., punish him for breaching the rules using physical discipline ranging from an assault to a stabbing. Mendibles called Lopez and told him to come over to talk about the situation. When Lopez hung up, he told appellant he was going to get Mendibles. Appellant told Gabriel Luna, a member of Macias’s and Zavala’s gang, to go with him. He asked if Luna had “that thing,” to which Luna responded by displaying a gun. Appellant told Lopez to “come to the back when you get here.” When Lopez found Mendibles, he told him, “Get ready, let’s go, we’re going to see [Macias]. We’re going to talk about this.” Mendibles did not think he could refuse because Lopez and Luna “came for a reason” and probably would have fought him. He thought if he went with them he would “probably just get beat up real quick and that was it.” He went with them to Rodriguez’s house. They brought him to the garage.