People v. Amador CA1/1

Filed 9/25/20 P. v. Amador CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A158908 v. LOEL AARON AMADOR, (San Francisco Super. Ct. No. SCN230962) Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Loel Aaron Amador was convicted of robbery, theft by fraud, and simple assault. On appeal, he challenges his robbery conviction, arguing that insufficient evidence showed that he had actual or constructive possession of the victim’s property. According to him, because there was a lack of such evidence, the trial court prejudicially erred in instructing the jury under CALCRIM No. 376, which explains that guilt may be inferred under certain circumstances if the defendant possessed recently stolen property. We affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In the early hours of November 16, 2018, the victim was walking on a sidewalk in the Mission District of San Francisco. A man wearing a black hooded sweatshirt, later identified as Amador’s cousin, Adiel Escobar, walked

1

up to him and said, “[G]ive me all your stuff.” The victim tried to walk away, but a car pulled up, and a second man got out and joined the first in demanding the victim’s possessions. The two assailants yelled at the victim and punched him “all over,” and the victim ended up on the ground. The victim gave the second assailant some of his possessions, including his wallet, which contained credit cards, and cell phone. The two assailants drove away in what a video recording showed the was a dark gray Honda Accord. Shortly after the attack, one of the victim’s credit cards was used to make a purchase at a 7-Eleven store. The store’s surveillance video showed both Amador and Escobar, who was still wearing the black hooded sweatshirt. After browsing the aisles and gathering “junk food,” Escobar used a credit card to pay for the items, with Amador standing nearby. Amador was arrested two months later. Shortly before his arrest, he was driving a dark gray Honda Accord, and officers found paperwork in his home and car showing that a Honda Accord was registered to him and his girlfriend. In Amador’s home, officers found clothing that matched the clothing he was wearing in the 7-Eleven video. Amador was charged with second degree robbery, theft by fraud, and assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury.1 A jury convicted him of the first two offenses. It acquitted him of assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury but found him guilty of the lesser included offense of simple assault under section 240. The trial court placed him on probation for three years, subject to various terms and conditions.