People v. Mixon CA4/1, D077235

Background

Early-morning "hole‑in‑the‑wall" burglary of a San Diego T‑Mobile store (July 2, 2018): holes cut through shared drywall, alarm/camera wiring disabled, safes cut open, ~$49,786 inventory stolen, >$11,000 property damage.
Investigators recovered multiple white rags at the rear of the store; DNA testing on two towels identified Mixon as a major contributor to the profiles.
Mixon’s cell‑phone records placed activity near the store before and after the burglary and showed an extended activity gap during the time of the crime (consistent with phone off/out of service).
Prosecution introduced four prior, highly similar burglaries (2012 GameStop; 2013 Moreno Valley T‑Mobile; March 2018 Fullerton T‑Mobile; May 2018 Fountain Valley T‑Mobile) showing the same specialized ‘‘hole‑in‑the‑wall’’ method, tools, stolen inventory, and in some instances tools or stolen items linked to Mixon (including DNA on gear).
At trial the jury convicted Mixon of grand theft (§ 487(a)), burglary (§ 459), and vandalism (§ 594(a), (b)(1)); court sentenced him to the upper term (three years) on count 1 and stayed other terms under § 654.
On appeal Mixon argued insufficient evidence—especially challenging the DNA proof and contending alibi/alternative explanations (DNA transfer, phone left with an acquaintance) created reasonable doubt.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to convict of theft, burglary, vandalism	Combined circumstantial proof (DNA on rags at crime scene, cell‑phone location/gap, prior similar offenses) supports guilt beyond reasonable doubt	Evidence is circumstantial; DNA could be transferred/old; alibi witnesses and phone explanations place Mixon elsewhere	Affirmed: substantial evidence supports convictions when viewed in light most favorable to verdict (convictions upheld)
Sufficiency of DNA evidence to link Mixon to the burglary	Mixon was major contributor on towels found in the rear near wall cut; statistical match very strong and location/timing supports he used them during the crime	DNA could have been deposited earlier or transferred; DNA‑only proof insufficient to show presence during offense	DNA was probative in context; not a DNA‑only case; jury reasonably inferred Mixon used the rags during the burglary; evidence sufficient
Admissibility/relevance of prior similar offenses (other burglaries)	Prior offenses with identical specialized method show identity/common plan/knowledge and are admissible under Evidence Code § 1101(b)	(Defense did not successfully exclude; argued prejudicial or not unique)	Prior crimes were sufficiently similar and probative of identity/plan; admissible and properly considered for limited purposes
Judicial notice of post‑trial order dismissing codefendant (Cuadra)	N/A (defendant sought notice to raise doubt)	Requested judicial notice of later order recalling warrant/dismissing Cuadra to undermine codefendant identification	Denied: document outside appellate record and more appropriate to raise via habeas corpus; court took no position on its merits

Key Cases Cited

People v. Cravens, 53 Cal.4th 500 (2012) (standard of review for sufficiency: review whole record in light most favorable to judgment)
People v. Zamudio, 43 Cal.4th 327 (2008) (deference to jury on credibility and factual resolution)
People v. Jones, 57 Cal.4th 899 (2013) (circumstantial evidence may suffice to prove guilt and reasonable inferences are key)
People v. Turner, 10 Cal.5th 786 (2020) (statistical/DNA evidence can provide substantial evidence supporting conviction)
Mikes v. Borg, 947 F.2d 353 (9th Cir. 1991) (federal fingerprint‑only authority distinguished where print found in publicly accessible location)
Magness v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.4th 270 (2012) (any slightest entry suffices for burglary)
People v. Erskine, 7 Cal.5th 279 (2019) (other‑crimes evidence admissible to show identity, plan, intent under Evid. Code § 1101(b))
People v. Bolin, 18 Cal.4th 297 (1998) (reversal for insufficiency only if no hypothesis supports conviction)