People v. Saucedo CA2/5

Filed 7/15/16 P. v. Saucedo CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B267536

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA429993) v.

JOSE MARIA SAUCEDO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Douglas Sortino, Judge. Affirmed. Tracy L. Emblem, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In November 2014, the District Attorney in Los Angeles charged defendant Jose Saucedo (defendant) with making a criminal threat, in violation of Penal Code section 1 422(a), and further alleged criminal street gang (§ 186.22(b)(1)(B)) and hate crime (§ 422.75(a)) enhancements. As testimony at defendant’s preliminary hearing established, the charges stemmed from two encounters between defendant and a Latina woman who had three children with a Black man. In the first encounter, defendant yelled racially derogatory threats at the woman, who lived in a housing project within territory claimed by the Big Hazard criminal street gang. In the second encounter when the woman was with her three-year-old son, defendant (shirtless with Big Hazard gang tattoos visible) told the woman that she should move out of the housing project because “our hood don’t get down like this,” that he knew she didn’t want “cocktails” flying in her house because 2 she had “little ones,” and that this was her “second warning.” Pursuant to an agreement with the People, defendant pled no contest to the section 422(a) charge and admitted the gang and hate crime allegations. The trial court imposed an 11-year prison sentence—the execution of which it suspended—and placed defendant on formal probation for 5 years. The conditions of his probation required, among other things, that defendant “not associate with and stay one hundred yards away from any member or associate of the Big Hazard criminal street gang” and that he “stay one hundred yards away from any areas or locations where associates or members of the Big Hazard criminal street gang congregate.” In entering his no contest plea, defendant said he understood these conditions of his probation, and when the court imposed sentence he raised no objection to the conditions. Defendant did not appeal his conviction. Law enforcement arrested defendant approximately four months later in April 2015 for violating his probation conditions. The trial court held a probation violation hearing at which a police officer testified he saw defendant with another Big Hazard gang