People v. Romo CA4/1

California Court of Appeal

People v. Romo CA4/1

California Court of Appeal·Decided October 31, 2013·No. D061794·Unpublished

Opinion

Filed 10/31/13 P. v. Romo CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D061794 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. Nos. JCF27332;

JCF27641)

JAVIER ROMO et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEALS from judgments of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Juan Ulloa, Judge. Affirmed.

John E. Edwards, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Javier Romo.

Ava R. Stralla, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Luis Scott.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Joy Utomi, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A jury found Javier Romo (a minor tried as an adult) and Luis Scott (together defendants) guilty of the attempted murder of Antonio Meza (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a) & 664). Defendants brought a new trial motion claiming juror misconduct and bias. The court denied the motion and sentenced Romo and Scott each to the middle prison term of seven years.

Defendants raise two contentions. First, Romo contends the court committed reversible error when it denied his motion to suppress evidence of a statement he made to police during custodial questioning after he was properly given a Miranda1 warning and the interrogating detective continued to question him after he said, "I wanna remain silence [sic]." Second, defendants contend the court erred in denying their motion for a new trial, in which they claimed Juror No. 1 knew and concealed the fact that Scott's trial counsel, Steven Honse, was a partner in the law firm that was then representing Juror No. 1's former husband in a child custody and child support modification proceeding. We affirm defendants' convictions.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. The People's Case At around 10:30 p.m. on Sunday, May 29, 2011, Antonio Meza left his home in El Centro and started walking to his girlfriend Blanca Medina's house. As he walked past a park, Meza saw a group of people gathered nearby to his left. He also saw a small white car stop briefly near the group and then drive away. As Meza continued walking,

1 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda).

the group of people started running towards him and five young Hispanic males surrounded him.

Meza testified that Romo stood "[r]ight in front of me" while the rest of the group circled around Meza. Although Meza recognized Romo because he had seen him around the neighborhood and had spoken to him a few times, Meza only knew him by his nickname, "Pistol."

In an angry and threatening manner, Romo said, "What's up," and asked Meza whether he had anything on him. After Meza replied that he did not have anything on him, someone behind him stabbed him and struck him in the back of the head and neck. Meza fell to the ground, got back up on his feet after the group kicked and hit him, and then started running.

As he was running, Meza looked over his left shoulder and saw someone, whom he later identified as Scott, who chased him and hit him from behind. Scott was the only one who was chasing Meza. Meza knew Scott by his nickname "Vago." Meza was able to identify Scott when Meza looked over his shoulder because there was a street light there. Meza did not know what he was hit with.

Meza kept running and Romo, Scott and the rest of the group drove off in the same white car Meza had seen earlier. Meza saw Romo sitting in the passenger seat as the car drove away. Meza was about 10 feet away from the car when it drove by.

Meza continued walking and felt blood going down his back. He felt dizzy, his vision was blurry, and he had difficulty breathing. He had to stop several times to rest.

Meza eventually reached Medina's house. When Meza went inside to her bedroom, she saw blood on the back of his sweater and sweatpants. Medina cut off his sweater and saw he had five stab wounds. She cleaned his wounds with hydrogen peroxide and used feminine pads to stop the bleeding. Medina asked Meza who had done that to him, and he said he was stabbed by a group. Meza told her two men whom he knew as "Vago" (Scott) and "Konex"2 were there.

Medina showed Meza a photograph of a group of five males,3 one of whom—at the far right—was Romo. She asked Meza if he recognized anyone in the picture. Meza pointed out Romo and another person whose name he did not know. Meza believed all five of the males in the photograph belonged to the same group. Later, after Meza started having convulsions, Medina's mother called 911.

Officers arrived on the scene and spoke with Meza, who told them that members of a group in the neighborhood had attacked him.

Meza was then hospitalized. He was in critical condition. He had suffered multiple stab wounds on his back, two on the left side of his chest and two on the right side, and had a collapsed lung. He was given a sedative medication called Versed, which can affect a patient's memory.

2 Medina testified that Konex was the nickname that Jose Cordova used. Cordova, whom Meza identified as one of his attackers, is not a party to this appeal.

3 The prosecution introduced the photograph as exhibit 10.

An officer investigating the stabbing spoke to Meza in the hospital. Meza identified Vago (Scott), a person he knew as Tiny,4 and Konex (Cordova, see fn. 2, ante) as three of his attackers.

Another officer, Detective Alfredo Hernandez, later interviewed Meza several times about the stabbing. Meza identified Romo out of a six-pack photographic lineup as one of the attackers. Meza also identified Konex and Tiny as attackers. During the first interview, Meza told Detective Hernandez that Romo stood next to Tiny during the attack.

B. The Defense

Romo's friend Enrique Jimenez, who was one of the five males shown in the photograph marked as exhibit 10 (discussed, ante), testified that on May 29, 2011, the night of the stabbing, Romo was with him at Jimenez's grandmother's house in El Centro for a barbeque dinner. Jimenez stated he was there with Romo from 5:30 p.m. to around 11:30 p.m. Jimenez's mother and grandmother also testified that Romo was with them at the barbeque at the time of the stabbing.

Romo also called an expert witness who testified about memory recall and suggestibility.

C. Prosecution's Rebuttal Evidence In response to the defense's three alibi witnesses, the People recalled Detective Hernandez, who again testified about his interview with Romo. In the interview, after

4 Tiny was the nickname used by Martin Andrade, who, like Cordova, is not a party to this appeal.

Detective Hernandez read him his Miranda rights and Romo said he understood those rights. Romo indicated that on the night of the stabbing he was in Mexicali at a baptism with his mother. A recording of that portion of the interview was played for the jury.

DISCUSSION

I. MIRANDA

Romo first claims the court committed reversible error when it denied his motion to suppress evidence of a statement he made to police during custodial questioning after he was properly given a Miranda warning. Specifically, he claims that Detective Hernandez violated his Miranda rights by continuing to question him after he invoked his right to remain silent by telling the detective, "I wanna remain silence [sic]," and that the court erred by denying his in limine motion to suppress his statement that on the night of the stabbing he was attending a baptism in Mexicali with his mother. This contention is unavailing.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI