People v. Pacheco CA3, C100291

Roy Dennis Pacheco and Monica Lopez carried out a series of six armed robberies at various Sacramento-area businesses in March 2019; multiple counts resulted from several employees being threatened at each location.
Pacheco was charged and convicted of 13 counts of second-degree robbery, all enhanced for personal use of a firearm and, for one count, discharge of a firearm; he was also convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm.
The prosecution alleged Pacheco had two prior serious felony convictions (California and federal) qualifying as strikes under California’s Three Strikes Law; the trial court found both prior convictions to be qualifying strikes.
On appeal, Pacheco challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for his prior strikes, three robbery convictions, certain jury instructions, and clerical errors in the abstract of judgment.
The appellate court ultimately affirmed most of the judgment, requiring only a correction to the abstract of judgment for scrivener’s errors.

Issue	Pacheco’s Argument	Prosecution’s Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for prior strike convictions	Prosecution failed to prove prior convictions were suffered by Pacheco and constituted strikes	Certified records and identifying information linked Pacheco to prior convictions; factual admissions qualified them as strikes	Substantial evidence supported both his identity and the convictions as strikes
Sufficiency of evidence for three robbery counts	Employees (Christopher, David, Claudia) not proven to be on duty, thus lacked constructive possession	Employees’ employment status and relationship to stunned property sufficed, even if not strictly “on duty”	Evidence sufficient—constructive possession is broader; jury could infer employment relationship
Jury instruction errors (CALCRIM Nos. 376, 1600)	Instructions created improper inferences, reduced burden of proof, misdefined “immediate presence”	Instructions followed legal precedent and included proper caution; no prejudice or confusion for jury	Instructions correct statements of law, no due process violation or misleading impact
Errors on abstract of judgment	Judgment erroneously reflected a court trial and miscalculated custody credits	Agrees abstract should conform to oral pronouncement and reflect true credits	Ordered correction of abstract of judgment only

People v. Epps, 25 Cal.4th 19 (Cal. 2001) (prosecution's burden to prove prior convictions under Three Strikes law)
People v. Scott, 45 Cal.4th 743 (Cal. 2009) (employees’ constructive possession in business robberies)
People v. Hayes, 52 Cal.3d 577 (Cal. 1990) (definition of immediate presence for robbery)
People v. Gamache, 48 Cal.4th 347 (Cal. 2010) (permissive jury instructions and harmless error analysis)
People v. Catlin, 26 Cal.4th 81 (Cal. 2001) (failure to request jury instruction clarification forfeits claim on appeal)