People v. Bravo CA5

California Court of Appeal Mar 11, 2022 No. F078651Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant's assault convictions, finding that a jury could reasonably infer the weapon was loaded based on the defendant's conduct and the subsequent discovery of the weapon and ammunition.

Issues

Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to prove the assault weapon was loaded with ammunition at the time of the offense.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A defendant’s own words and conduct in the course of an offense may support a rational fact finder’s determination that he used a loaded weapon.”

“A reasonable jury could find the weapon had been recently unloaded, i.e., it was loaded when used in the earlier threat.”

Filed 3/11/22 P. v. Bravo CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F078651 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF172411A) v.

ABRAND SALAZAR BRAVO, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Michael E. Dellostritto, Judge. Barbara A. Smith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez, Amanda D. Cary, and Lewis A. Martinez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

Abrand Salazar Bravo was convicted of numerous crimes after he used an assault weapon1 to threaten two people. On appeal, he challenges his assault-related convictions, contending the evidence was legally insufficient because there was no credible evidence the weapon was loaded with ammunition. We disagree and affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND Charges The Kern County District Attorney charged Bravo with the following 11 crimes: assault with an assault weapon (Pen. Code,2 § 245, subd. (a)(3), count 1); assault with an assault weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(3), count 2); assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b), count 3); assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b), count 4); assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2), count 5); assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2), count 6); illegally possessing a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1), count 7); criminal threats (§ 422, count 8); criminal threats (§ 422, count 9); possessing methamphetamine for sale (Health and Saf. Code, § 11378, count 10); and possessing a large-capacity magazine (§ 32310, count 12).3 Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, and 9 included an enhancement for personally using a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). Count 10 included an enhancement for being armed with a firearm. (§ 12022, subd. (c).) Evidence4 The victims were outside a residence when Bravo arrived nearby in a vehicle. Both victims approached the vehicle. While the victims were less than 10 feet away,

People v. Bravo CA5

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

SNAUFFER, J.

AI Brief