Opinion
F075522
04-09-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAIME JOSHUA ALONZO, Defendant and Appellant.
Jake Christopher Stebner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. VCF263142)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Brent R. Alldredge, Judge. Jake Christopher Stebner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Franson, Acting P.J., Peña, J. and Ellison, J.†
-ooOoo-
A jury found appellant Jaime Joshua Alonzo, a convicted felon, guilty of possessing both a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1); count 1) and ammunition (§ 12316, subd. (b)(1); count 2). In a bifurcated court trial, he admitted a prior serious felony that resulted in a prison sentence. He received an aggregate prison term of five years. Alonzo appealed, contending the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial. In an unpublished opinion in case number F068960, filed September 26, 2016, we remanded the matter for the trial court to conduct a new hearing on the motion for new trial.
Subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted. --------
On remand, the trial court held a hearing on the motion for new trial and denied the motion. Alonzo appealed and appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On July 21, 2017, this court took judicial notice of the appellate record and opinion in case number F068960. (People v. Alonzo (Sept. 26, 2016, F068960 [nonpub. opn.] (Alonzo I).) The testimony at trial, facts underlying the conviction, and some of the procedural history are taken from Alonzo I.
Prosecution Evidence
On November 22, 2011, a Visalia police officer stopped Alonzo for a traffic violation. Alonzo indicated he was on parole, and he eventually was arrested. Alonzo informed the officer he was living with his mother, but admitted he also had a key for his girlfriend's residence.
The officer took Alonzo to his mother's residence. The officer testified that Alonzo's mother told him a front bedroom belonged to Alonzo's brother. After examining several rooms, the officer believed Alonzo did not reside there. The officer transported Alonzo to his girlfriend's residence. The officer described Alonzo as nervous when informed they were going to his girlfriend's residence for a search.
The officer spoke with the girlfriend, Nancy Rodriguez, at her residence. In a bedroom, he noticed a lot of men's clothing, including shirts and four boxes of men's shoes. There were three hampers in the bedroom, and men's clothing in some of the hampers. Alonzo's California identification card was found in one of the hampers, and the officer seized a loaded .9-millimeter Smith and Wesson handgun located in a closet in that room. The gun was underneath a stack of several T-shirts and a pair of khaki shorts, and next to a Cincinnati Reds hat. The officer found that significant because, at the time of the traffic stop, appellant was wearing a black Cincinnati hat. The two hats were similar in design but different in color.
Later in the officer's presence, Alonzo told Rodriguez he was "sorry" and he was going back to prison for about a year.
Rodriguez told the officer only she and Alonzo resided there. Alonzo later admitted to the officer he spent about half of his time at Rodriguez's residence, and the clothing found in the bedroom belonged to him. Alonzo, however, denied any knowledge of the gun. Rodriguez told the officer the gun was not hers and only Alonzo could have put it in that room.
The recovered gun later was processed for fingerprints. No fingerprints were found on it. The parties stipulated Alonzo previously was convicted of a felony.
Defense Evidence
A. Testimony from Alonzo's Mother
Alonzo's mother testified he lived with her in November 2011, occupying the front bedroom in her home. She claimed Alonzo had clothes and shoes in that room, along with personal items such as pictures and letters. She denied ever informing the officer that Alonzo's brother resided in that room, claiming his two brothers never lived with her at that residence. She said she informed the officer that the front bedroom was Alonzo's. On cross-examination, she said Alonzo stayed at his girlfriend's house once or twice a week.
B. Testimony from Nancy Rodriguez
Rodriguez did not know how the handgun got into her residence. She had never seen the gun before, and she had never seen Alonzo with it. She denied that Alonzo ever told her he brought a gun into her residence. She said her cousin, Isaac Fierro, stayed with her periodically in 2011, mostly sleeping on the couch, and he kept clothing in her residence. She claimed the Cincinnati Reds hat found near the gun was hers and not Alonzo's. She said the clothes found near the gun were maybe Fierro's or hers, or "extra clothes." She said the gun was located in a spare bedroom and not in her bedroom.
On cross-examination, she admitted Alonzo stayed with her "a couple of nights" at her residence, but he did not live there. Fierro would "sometimes" spend the night, too, but Rodriguez did not keep track of him. She admitted it was possible that some of the clothes found in her residence belonged to Alonzo, but believed more of them were Fierro's. She said Alonzo slept in her bedroom, which was separate from where the gun was discovered. She admitted not telling the officer about Fierro.
C. Testimony from Isaac Fierro
Fierro said he stayed at Rodriguez's apartment about 25 percent of the time, keeping personal items there. He claimed the gun was his, and he placed it in her residence the day before the officer found it. He never told Rodriguez or Alonzo about the gun.
Fierro said he bought the gun from somebody but could not remember from where. Before viewing exhibit photos of the gun, Fierro described it as a .9-millimeter that was primarily either black or silver, but he could not remember. He could not remember the gun's model.
On cross-examination, Fierro said he stayed at Rodriguez's residence "maybe one night a month" but he was not sure. He admitted he could not recall what the gun looked like because he had just purchased it before placing it in her residence. He admitted he was not sure if this was the same gun he had purchased, but said it looked "something like it." He admitted he had been convicted of a felony.
D. Testimony from Alonzo
Alonzo denied any knowledge of the gun found in Rodriguez's house. He claimed to have never seen that gun before and to have not been involved in placing it in Rodriguez's closet.
On cross-examination, Alonzo admitted he stayed at Rodriguez's residence a "couple of days out of the week." He was sure he had clothes there but they were in Rodriguez's bedroom and not in the room where the gun was found. He agreed the officer found his identification card in her residence. He denied telling the officer that the clothes in the other bedroom belonged to him.
Rebuttal Evidence
The officer denied that Alonzo's mother told him the front bedroom belonged to Alonzo, stating she told him it belonged to Alonzo's brother. He walked through that area and he did not see anything indicating it was Alonzo's room.
The officer disputed some of Rodriguez's testimony, claiming she told him she occupied the bedroom with Alonzo where the gun was located. She said the clothing in that room belonged to Alonzo. She told the officer she did not know the gun was there and she denied anyone other than Alonzo could have put it there. At no time did Fierro contact the police department to take ownership of the gun.
Sentencing
After trial, Alonzo moved for a new trial or, in the alternative, a dismissal for lack of sufficient evidence. The trial court denied the motion for new trial and denied his motion to strike his prior convictions pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. Alonzo was sentenced to an aggregate term of five years and four months.
Alonzo petitioned the trial court for resentencing pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (d)(1). The trial court resentenced Alonzo, reducing his sentence to an aggregate term of five years.
Alonzo appealed from the judgment, and in Alonzo I, we concluded the trial court (1) did not articulate the correct standard of review in ruling on the motion for new trial, (2) failed to act as a 13th juror to review and independently evaluate the evidence, and (3) failed to give Alonzo the benefit of its independent conclusion regarding the sufficiency of credible evidence to support the verdicts. We remanded the matter for a new hearing on the motion for new trial, offering no opinion on whether a new trial was warranted or not. Our remand was limited; if the trial court determined the motion should be granted, then Alonzo was entitled to a new trial. If, however, the trial court determined the motion should be denied, then the judgment was to be reinstated.
Proceedings After Remittitur
After remittitur, on March 1, 2017, the trial court held a new hearing on Alonzo's motion for new trial. At that hearing, the trial court noted for the record it had read the pleadings, the Alonzo I opinion, and "the transcript of much of the trial." The parties argued the motion. The trial court noted that its comments at the initial sentencing were "an unfocused confusion of words."
The trial court then noted that it was aware of the court's "obligation, upon a motion for a new trial, to independently review the evidence." After independently reviewing the evidence, the trial court found there was "sufficient credible evidence to support the verdicts" as to "each essential element." In conclusion, the trial court stated:
"The defendant is entitled to the Court's independent conclusion regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdicts, circumstantial or otherwise.
"In exercising that independent judgment, in reviewing the evidence, I find there is such credible evidence. Therefore, the motion for a new trial is denied."
On April 20, 2017, Alonzo filed an appeal. Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 on October 18, 2017. That same day, this court issued its letter to Alonzo inviting supplemental briefing. No supplemental brief was filed.
DISCUSSION
The doctrine of res judicata "effectively preclude[s] the relitigation of issues that were or could have been decided in the first appeal." (People v. Wycoff (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 410, 415.) Consequently, any issues that were, or could have been, raised in the first appeal are not subject to review in this appeal. Because we remanded the matter in Alonzo I for the limited purpose of a new hearing on the motion for new trial, only the determination of that motion is subject to review in this appeal. (People v. Murphy (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 392, 396-397.)
"On a motion for a new trial, a trial court must review the evidence independently, considering the proper weight to be afforded to the evidence and then deciding whether there is sufficient credible evidence to support the verdict." (People v. Lewis (2001) 26 Cal.4th 334, 364.) At the hearing after remand, the trial court stated for the record it had reviewed the evidence by reading the trial transcript and opined that it found credible evidence supported the verdicts. The trial court then denied the motion. A trial court is authorized to grant a new trial when the verdict "is contrary to law or evidence." (§ 1181, subd. (6).) The record thus reflects the trial court applied the proper standard for determining a motion for new trial.
" 'We review a trial court's ruling on a motion for a new trial under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.' " (People v. Thompson (2010) 49 Cal.4th 79, 140 (Thompson).) " ' "A trial court's ruling on a motion for new trial is so completely within that court's discretion that a reviewing court will not disturb the ruling absent a manifest and unmistakable abuse of that discretion." ' " (Ibid.) "The appellant has the burden to demonstrate that the trial court's decision was 'irrational or arbitrary,' or that it was not ' "grounded in reasoned judgment and guided by legal principles and policies appropriate to the particular matter at issue." ' " (People v. Andrade (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 651, 659.)
No such showing has been made. The testimony of a single witness is sufficient to support a conviction. (People v. Brown (2014) 59 Cal.4th 86, 106.) Resolution of conflicts and inconsistencies in testimony is the exclusive province of the trier of fact. (Ibid.) Here, the trial court commented positively on the officer's testimony and Rodriguez's statements to the officer, noted that Fierro's testimony was not credible, and deemed the testimony of Alonzo and his mother "self-serving." The evidence supports the trial court's determination.
We find nothing irrational or arbitrary about the trial court's decision and the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial. (Thompson, supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 140.)
After an independent review of the record, we find no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
† Retired judge of the Fresno Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.