People v. Macias CA4/1

Filed 7/18/22 P. v. Macias CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D078868

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE400946)

JESUS DANIEL MACIAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Patricia K. Cookson, Judge. Affirmed. Heather Lee Beugen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Daniel Rogers, Christopher P. Beesley and Kristen Kinnaird Chenelia, Deputy Attorneys General for Plaintiff and Respondent. A jury convicted Jesus Daniel Macias of attempted robbery of victim

S.A. (Pen. Code,1 §§ 211, 664; count 2) and exhibiting a deadly or dangerous

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

weapon other than a firearm, a misdemeanor (§ 417, subd. (a)(1); count 3). It found true allegations that Macias personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon—a knife—during the commission of count 2 within the meaning of sections 12022, subdivision (b)(1), and 1192.7, subdivision (c)(23). The jury acquitted Macias of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count 1), and the lesser included offense of simple assault. The court suspended imposition of sentence on count 2 and placed Macias on a two-year grant of formal probation, including 365 days in county jail as well as various other terms and conditions. It then denied probation as to count 3 and sentenced Macias to 364 days in county jail. It stayed imposition of all fines and fees on the ground Macias had no ability to pay them. Macias contends we must reverse his attempted robbery conviction because there is insufficient evidence he either (1) specifically intended to commit robbery or (2) committed an overt act—a direct but ineffectual step— towards its commission. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In July 2020, S.A. parked his truck in a liquor store parking lot after the end of his work day. He was sitting in the driver’s seat with the windows rolled down when a man, later identified at trial as Macias, walked up and demanded S.A. give him money. S.A., who observed the man looked dirty and appeared to be under the influence of something, said no. Macias put his hand in his pocket and told S.A. that if S.A. did not give him money, he was going to cut S.A.’s tires. Macias then walked behind S.A.’s truck, so S.A. exited the vehicle to confront him and saw Macias had a seven- or eight-inch long knife in his hand. S.A. feared for his own safety. Macias came toward S.A., who told Macias to calm down or S.A. would call the police. Macias got much more upset and came closer to S.A. with the knife in his closed fist