People v. Himed CA1/2
Filed 8/15/23 P. v. Himed CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A161997 v. MUSSIE HIMED, (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR–712835–3) Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Mussie Himed appeals from an order that he pay impound and storage fees for a silver Chrysler van. Defendant contends the record contains insufficient evidence that the vehicle impounded was used to commit crimes for which he was convicted. We agree and reverse the order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Early on the morning of February 8, 2018, defendant and four confederates committed two home invasion robberies in Sonoma County.1 The previous day, defendant’s four confederates had flown to California from Virginia to commit the home invasion robberies. Defendant picked them up at San Francisco International Airport in a silver Chrysler van and dropped them off at a Motel 6 in Santa Rosa. Later, defendant picked them
1 The facts of the offense are based on the preliminary hearing
transcript.
1
up in the same silver van and took them to an apartment complex where defendant picked up some guns and the group switched from the silver van to a green van. Defendant and his confederates used the green van to go to the two houses they robbed. At the first location, one of the robbers (not defendant) shot one of the victims. At the second location, defendant did not go into the house, and two of the robbers shot and killed a man. After the second home invasion robbery, the group drove to Vallejo. Law enforcement located their vehicle by a “phone ping” of a cellphone taken from the second house. Vallejo police conducted a traffic stop of the green van, there was a high-speed chase, and the van crashed. Defendant and three of his confederates were arrested that day.2 The green van (a Chevrolet Astro) was towed to the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office and processed for evidence. Several long guns, packages of suspected marijuana, additional firearms (some of the firearms were the ones the robbers used in the offenses while other firearms were stolen from the homes), and additional items, including a credit card that belonged to one of the robbery victims, were found in the green van. In November 2020, defendant and the prosecution reached a negotiated disposition. Defendant pleaded guilty to second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187) and six counts of residential robbery in concert (id., §§ 211, 213) and admitted a principal was armed with a firearm (id., § 12022, subd. (a)(1)) as to four of the robbery counts. In exchange, the prosecution agreed to a
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)