B252895
Cal. Ct. App.Feb 26, 2015Background
- On Sept. 27, 2011 plainclothes LAPD officers in a Camaro encountered Armando Robles Jr., who gestured and drew a gun; Michael Ibarra followed him. A silver car containing Robles, Ibarra, and a third occupant (Miranda) pursued the Camaro; an occupant of the silver car fired at the Camaro at close range.
- Police later arrested Robles and Ibarra near an apartment complex and recovered two handguns from the area. Ballistics linked a .45 caliber round to the Camaro; gunshot residue tests were negative for both defendants.
- A jury convicted both defendants of two counts of attempted murder (willful, deliberate, premeditated) and one count of shooting at an occupied vehicle; gang enhancements under Penal Code §186.22(b) were found true as to each count. The jury found a §12022.53(b) (personal use) allegation true as to Robles but not Ibarra; the §12022.53(c) (personal discharge) allegations were found not true as to both.
- At trial the defense argued the passenger in the silver car could not have fired as described and presented a trajectory expert; the court excluded a custodial statement by Robles as non-spontaneous and excluded impeachment evidence about officer discipline under Evid. Code §352/§1101(b).
- Sentences: Robles—consecutive life terms with parole eligibility after 63 years (includes three‑strikes and gang sentencing rules); Ibarra—consecutive life terms with parole eligibility after 30 years. The Court of Appeal affirmed but ordered correction of a clerical error in the minute order regarding Ibarra.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted murder | Evidence (gesturing, gun display, foot and vehicle pursuit, close‑range shooting) supports aiding and abetting intent to kill | Insufficient to prove specific intent to kill or that defendants aided shooter | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports attempted murder convictions as aiders and abettors |
| Sufficiency for shooting at occupied vehicle | Same evidence supports §246 conviction | Shooting could have been by Camaro occupant or otherwise insufficient | Affirmed: evidence supports convictions for shooting at an occupied vehicle |
| Gang enhancement (§186.22(b)) | Acts committed with known gang members; jury may infer intent to further gang criminal conduct | Must show intent to facilitate other criminal conduct beyond the charged offense | Affirmed: under People v. Albillar, intent prong covers the charged offense; evidence supports gang findings |
| Failure to instruct on self-defense / imperfect self-defense / attempted voluntary manslaughter | Defense asked for instructions based on claim of perceived threat | No evidence defendant(s) were under imminent threat or attempted withdrawal; defendants were aggressors | No instructional error: no substantial evidence supporting those defenses |
| Exclusion of Robles’s custodial statement (Evid. Code §1240) | Statement was spontaneous and admissible as excited utterance | Statement was made after handcuff/search and not under dominating excitement | Exclusion upheld: trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Exclusion of impeachment evidence re: Officer Wences | Prior disciplinary incident shows bias/motive to fabricate | Prior incident dissimilar, off‑duty, low probative value; risk of unfair prejudice and time consumption | Exclusion under Evid. Code §352 upheld |
| Review of sealed Pitchess records | Defense asked appellate in‑camera review for nondisclosure error | State did not oppose review | Appellate in‑camera review found withheld materials not material; nondisclosure proper |
| Sentencing interplay §186.22 and §12022.53 (parole eligibility increased to 15 yrs) | Defendants argued §12022.53(e)(2) barred imposing §186.22(b)(5) 15‑yr parole minimum where no personal use | Court must avoid double punishment; §12022.53(e)(2) applies only when §12022.53 enhancement imposed for another’s firearm use | Affirmed: court properly imposed §186.22(b)(5) 15‑yr minimum (Ibarra not found exposed to §12022.53 enhancement; Robles received stay on the lesser enhancement consistent with law) |
| Cruel and unusual punishment (Ibarra) | Aggregate 30‑year parole minimum + life constitutes disproportional punishment | Sentence fits conduct: intended to kill officers by aiding shooter | Claim forfeited; alternatively, no gross disproportionality—claim denied |
| Clerical error in minute order | Minute order incorrectly recorded a §12022.53(b) finding true as to Ibarra | Jury verdict actually stated not true | Ordered corrected: remand to amend minute order |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Hajek and Vo, 58 Cal.4th 1144 (2014) (intent to kill for attempted murder often inferred from conduct)
- People v. Lee, 31 Cal.4th 613 (2003) (aider-and‑abettor liability and intent requirements)
- People v. Albillar, 51 Cal.4th 47 (2010) (§186.22 intent prong covers intent to facilitate criminal conduct including the charged offense)
- People v. Mendoza, 18 Cal.4th 1114 (1998) (§246 is a general intent crime; aider liability requires specific intent to encourage the act)
- People v. Brookfield, 47 Cal.4th 583 (2009) (interaction of §12022.53 enhancements with gang sentencing under §186.22)
- People v. Lucas, 60 Cal.4th 153 (2014) (standards for spontaneous/excited‑utterance exception under Evid. Code §1240)