P. v. Geronimo

Filed 12/12/17 P. v. Geronimo CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ABRAHAM GERONIMO,
Defendant and
Appellant.
B277467
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BA443976)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Kathleen Kennedy-Powell, Judge. Affirmed.
Benjamin Owens, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler,
Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant
Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Ryan M. Smith,
Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * * * * *

-- 1 of 7 --

2
Defendant Abraham Geronimo challenges his conviction
for attempted premeditated murder. He argues that the record
lacks sufficient evidence to support the conviction. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
1. Amended Information
Defendant was charged with one count of attempted
willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder. It was alleged
that a principal personally used and discharged a firearm
causing great bodily injury within the meaning of Penal Code
section 12022.53, subdivisions (b), (c), (d) and (e)(1). Defendant
also was charged with one count of assault with a firearm. A
gang enhancement was alleged with respect to both charges.
2. Trial Testimony
The evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the
judgment showed the following. (People v. Jennings (2010) 50
Cal.4th 616, 638.) On February 10, 2015, then 13-year-old
Julio R. shot Esteban Pablo three times. Julio pointed the gun
at Pablo when he fired. One bullet penetrated Pablo’s leg,
causing him injury.
Immediately prior to the shooting, Julio was with
defendant, his fellow gang member. They were spray-painting
a garage door, near Pablo’s residence. Pablo went outside his
residence to move his car, and Julio said to defendant, “Don’t
mess with me.” During this interaction, defendant was
“looking” and “keeping an eye out,” and was acting as a
“lookout.”
Defendant waited for Julio. After Julio shot Pablo,
defendant and Julio fled together. Deputy sheriffs found
defendant and Julio shortly after the shooting at defendant’s
residence. They saw defendant discard a white shirt, and

-- 2 of 7 --

3
inside the white shirt, they found the gun Julio had used to
shoot Pablo. The gun had malfunctioned when a bullet
remained stuck in the chamber. Julio discarded a shirt
containing another firearm.
It was undisputed that defendant was a member of the
Easy Riders 13 gang and that he was active in the gang.
Defendant’s moniker was Necio. Defendant and Julio were
crossing out rival gang members graffiti when Pablo exited his
residence and was shot.
A gang expert testified that older gang members often
mentor younger gang members. According to the gang expert,
juvenile gang members are encouraged to commit crimes
because the consequences to them are less severe than those
imposed on adult gang members. When gang members go “on
a mission” it means that they are planning to commit crimes.
When gang members go on a mission to cross out a rival gang’s
graffiti, the gang members are often armed. They arm
themselves in anticipation of a confrontation with other gang
members or with nearby residents. Gang members use
violence to instill fear within the community.
3. Aiding and Abetting Instruction
Jurors were instructed that to prove a defendant is guilty
of aiding and abetting, the People must prove: “1. The
perpetrator committed the crime; [¶] 2. The defendant knew
that the perpetrator intended to commit the crime; [¶] 3.
Before or during the commission of the crime, the defendant
intended to aid and abet the perpetrator in committing the
crime; [¶] AND [¶] 4. The defendant’s words or conduct did in
fact aid and abet the perpetrator’s commission of the crime.”

-- 3 of 7 --

4
4. Judgment
Defendant was convicted of all charges. He was
sentenced to prison for life plus an additional 25 years to life
for the enhancement. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, defendant argues that there was insufficient
evidence to support the crimes because “there was no evidence
to suggest that [defendant] was aware of Julio P.’s [sic]
capacity for deadly violence.” Defendant further argues
“nothing suggests a common purpose of killing.” Defendant
argues that his only purpose in being at the scene was to
“stake a claim to territory with graffiti.” Defendant
acknowledges that he “presumably knew Julio P. [sic] was
armed” but claims that he was ignorant Julio would “try to kill
a bystander with no relation to a gang.”
Attempted murder requires the specific intent to kill,
and an aider and abetter must share that specific intent.
(People v. Lee (2003) 31 Cal.4th 613, 623-624.) “ ‘[A] person
aids and abets the commission of a crime when he or she,
acting with (1) knowledge of the unlawful purpose of the
perpetrator; and (2) the intent or purpose of committing,
encouraging, or facilitating the commission of the offense, (3)
by act or advice aids, promotes, encourages or instigates, the
commission of the crime.’ ”1 (People v. Gonzales and Soliz
(2011) 52 Cal.4th 254, 295-296.)
“ ‘To determine whether there is substantial evidence to
support a conviction we must view the record in a light most
favorable to conviction, resolving all conflicts in the evidence
1 The natural and probable consequences doctrine is not
implicated in this case.

-- 4 of 7 --

5
and drawing all reasonable inferences in support of conviction.
We may conclude that there is no substantial evidence in
support of conviction only if it can be said that on the evidence
presented no reasonable fact finder could find the defendant to
be guilty on the theory presented.’ ” (People v. Garcia (2008)
168 Cal.App.4th 261, 272.) “[N]either presence at the scene of
a crime nor knowledge of, but failure to prevent it, is sufficient
to establish aiding and abetting its commission. [Citations.]
However, ‘[a]mong the factors which may be considered in
making the determination of aiding and abetting are: presence
at the scene of the crime, companionship, and conduct before
and after the offense.’ ” (People v. Campbell (1994) 25
Cal.App.4th 402, 409.)
Defendant’s argument ignores the appropriate standard
of review. Once the evidence is considered in the light most
favorable to the judgment, ample evidence supported the
judgment. Stated otherwise, defendant’s argument that he
was unaware of Julio’s intent to use violence and more
specifically of his intent to kill is not persuasive. Jurors could
reasonably conclude that defendant knew of and shared Julio’s
intention.
Defendant did not “independently happen by the scene of
the crime.” (People v. Campbell, supra, 25 Cal.App.4th at
p. 409.) Defendant and Julio armed themselves prior to going
on a gang mission. It was common for an older gang member
to mentor a younger gang member, and jurors could have
inferred that defendant was mentoring Julio. Together they
committed vandalism by spray painting a garage door. When
Pablo exited his residence, Julio and defendant continued to
act together as Julio shot Pablo and defendant acted as his

-- 5 of 7 --

6
lookout. Julio pointed at Pablo as he shot multiple times. He
stopped shooting when a bullet failed to leave the chamber.
Defendant and Julio continued to act together after the
shooting. They fled together and subsequently were found
discarding firearms at defendant’s residence. Based on this
evidence reasonable jurors could infer defendant intended to
aid and abet the killing and the assault with the firearm.
Defendant’s argument that in other cases the aider and
abettor spoke during a confrontation rather than acting only as
a lookout does not show that the elements of aiding and
abetting were not established in this case. Acting as a lookout
is a method of aiding and abetting a crime. (People v. Ketchum
(1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 615, 619.) As People v. Garcia explains:
“ ‘[T]he law imposes criminal liability upon all persons
“concerned” in the commission of a crime. [Citation.] As a
legal standard this provision creates what may be considered a
“bright line” rule. If a person is “concerned” in the commission
of a crime then he is guilty of that crime without assessment of
the degree of his involvement otherwise. “Liability attaches to
anyone ‘concerned,’ however slight such concern may be, for
the law establishes no degree of the concern required to fix
liability as a principal.” [Citations.] A person is “concerned”
and hence guilty as an aider and abettor if, with the requisite
state of mind, that person in any way, directly or indirectly,
aided the actual perpetrator by acts or encouraged the
perpetrator by words or gestures.’ ” (People v. Garcia, supra,
168 Cal.App.4th at p. 272.) Here, defendant aided Julio by

-- 6 of 7 --

7
acting as his lookout. His state of mind may be inferred from
the circumstances.2
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
FLIER, J.
WE CONCUR:
BIGELOW, P. J.
RUBIN, J.
2 In a supplemental brief, defendant argues that this case
should be remanded for resentencing. His argument is based
on an amendment to Penal Code section 12022.53. His
argument is not persuasive because the amendment is not yet
effective.

-- 7 of 7 --