People v. Baranovych CA3

Filed 3/30/22 P. v. Baranovych CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yolo) ----

THE PEOPLE, C094047

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CR-2020-200)

v.

VLADISLAV LEONIDOV BARANOVYCH,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Vladislav Leonidov Baranovych appeals his conviction for felony grand theft. He claims that the trial court erred in allowing evidence of prior burglarious acts to be considered by the jury, and then by confusing the jury with improper instructions. He claims that his conviction cannot stand, as the jury likely convicted him based on a desire to punish him for his prior acts. We affirm. BACKGROUND Defendant was charged with grand theft (Pen. Code, §§ 484, subd. (a), 487, subd. (a)–count 1) and receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 196, subd. (a)–count 2) after he was found in possession of items taken from Pedro S.’s vehicle. Pedro, a law

1

enforcement officer, lived with his wife Michaela A. in an apartment complex. One morning, Pedro and Michaela discovered that someone had rummaged through Pedro’s Ford Explorer, which was locked the night prior. Several items were missing from the car including two dash cameras, Pedro’s work laptop, a baby stroller, a backpack, and a small pendant. Pedro later discovered an iPhone also was missing. Pedro estimated that the items taken were worth over $950 in total; the laptop alone would cost approximately $1,000 to replace. Pedro reviewed footage from his home security cameras. Only one person was captured on video. At about 4:00 that morning, someone walked near Pedro’s vehicle holding Pedro’s work laptop, which Pedro recognized by an inventory sticker. The videos did not provide a clear image of the person’s face, but he was wearing white slippers and walked with a distinct limp that made a very distinct shuffling noise. The jury saw and heard the footage from the security cameras. Pedro reported the incident to the police. He also reported the theft to his employer and learned he would have to pay to replace the laptop. To mitigate his losses, he decided to look in nearby pawnshops for his property. Michaela went with him. On the way to the pawnshops, Pedro stopped to see if any of his property ended up at a nearby homeless encampment. Michaela saw defendant carrying a laptop in a pink bag. She recognized him as wearing the same clothes and making the same distinctive shuffling noise as the person from the surveillance video. She alerted Pedro to defendant. Pedro saw defendant had a phone in his possession and realized it must be the iPhone he stored in his vehicle. Identifying himself as an off-duty police officer, Pedro told defendant to stop. Defendant started speaking incoherently. According to Pedro, defendant “said something to the effect that it was okay, he just spoke with . . . the sheriff, and he said it was okay.” Pedro detained defendant and Michaela called 911. Police responded and arrested defendant.