People v. Pearce CA4/3

Filed 1/22/21 P. v. Pearce CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G057650

v. (Super. Ct. No. 14WF3082)

KENNETH LEE PEARCE, JR., OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Michael A. Leversen, Judge. Affirmed. Alan S. Yockelson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Michael C. Keller and Charles J. Sarosy, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Appellant Kenneth Lee Pearce, Jr., and his codefendants Desiree Rodriguez and Selena Siedlecki were convicted of multiple crimes for plotting and executing a violent attack against Mario Barriga. Appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his request for a separate trial, and there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction 1 for torture. Finding these contentions unmeritorious, we affirm the judgment. FACTS In 2014, Barriga was working as a mobile tattoo artist in Orange County. Having known Siedlecki for several years, and being acquainted with Rodriguez through his good friend Mikey Carter, Barriga thought he was on good terms with them. But by the summer of 2014, Siedlecki and Rodriguez had begun to suspect Barriga and Carter had stolen some of their personal property. So, they enlisted appellant and came up with a plan to get their belongings back. The plan was launched on August 7, 2014. That day, Siedlecki invited Barriga over to her Costa Mesa residence for the ostensible purpose of giving her a tattoo. However, soon after Barriga arrived, Rodriguez and appellant entered the home and confronted him. Rodriguez accused Barriga of stealing a television and other items from her. She also wanted to know where Carter was. Barriga said he didn’t know anything about Rodriguez’s stolen property or Carter’s whereabouts, but Rodriguez did not believe him. She and appellant hogtied Barriga on the floor with duct tape. Then they put tape over his mouth and nose, making it hard for him to breathe. Barriga struggled to get free, but appellant hit him in the back of the head with a metal pipe, causing him to black out momentarily. When Barriga came to, Rodriguez and appellant removed his belt, and appellant wrapped it around his neck like a noose. Then, while appellant was holding the long end of the belt, Rodriguez again asked Barriga where Carter was, as well as other