By Dominique Kato
SACRAMENTO – Seemingly overwhelming evidence provided at a preliminary hearing that a defendant was involved in a stolen vehicle scheme—stolen vehicles were found where he lived—was enough here last week to convince Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Allen Sumner to find sufficient cause that Jose Ruelas is guilty and should be bound over for trial.
Ruelas, according to the evidence, bought or received numerous stolen vehicles, was in possession of an assault weapon, had stolen tools, and was in possession of a controlled substance.
Detective Chris Casciatio testified he discussed details of the theft of a stolen 2015 Chrysler Sedan 300 with the owner—the car was stolen more than a year ago, on August 18, 2019.
Private defense counsel D. Randall Ensminger asked Casciatio if the victim knew who stole their car. The detective said the victim did not know who stole the vehicle, and, when he mentioned the defendant, they said they did not know anyone by that name.
Proceeding, Judge Sumner asked Ensminger to walk through the vehicle counts that he believed did not have enough sufficient evidence.
Defense attorney Ensminger argued that there was no evidence to show the property was stolen, and that this is a necessary element for the charges.
Ensminger added the only related evidence was that the vehicle was located at the home of the defendant’s parents, and that Ruelas was seen driving it. Further, he argues that the vehicle had only been stolen the night before, and there was no evidence to show that the defendant had left his house, had been involved in obtaining it, or was involved in the plate switching.
Ensminger argued the evidence is limited to the fact that the plate on the car was associated with a vehicle that had previously been registered to the defendant. There is no evidence of how it got onto the car, or whether Ruelas was involved in putting it there, noted Ensminger.
Count 3 is a Chevy Silverado, and Ensminger said the evidence does show the donor vehicle that was used was at one time in the defendant’s name. He argued this is the only support they have. Judge Sumner interrupted, addressing a CHP stop involving a victim who said he had borrowed the car from Ruelas. Sumner asked if this was correct, and Ensminger agreed this was also in his notes.
Ensminger then said he misspoke and that the only evidence for Count 3 was the defendant’s name on the donor vehicle and the search and testimony of the victim who borrowed the car.
Ensminger argued Count 4, involving the defendant’s mother’s Chrysler 300, does not show the defendant was involved in the change of title, other than it showing the car was registered to him and his mother. The only evidence is Ruelas driving it, so the charge should not survive, argued the defense.
Count 5 involved a 2006 Yukon, where the defendant was never seen driving it but co-owned it with another person. That person was seen driving it, and was stopped in Woodland, noted Ensminger. In this count, there is no evidence to who sold the vehicle to them or what happened to that donor vehicle, argued Ensminger
Ensminger then noted they had already discussed Counts 6 and 7. Lastly, was Count 8 and Ensminger admitted the evidence is adequate that the defendant did sell to the victim, and the donor vehicle was in the defendant’s name. Although, he argued, despite the two items, there is no evidence the defendant knew the vehicle was stolen.
Now arguing the other counts, there was Count 9, an assault rifle charge which Ensminger found adequate. For Count 10 the defendant was charged with possession of a large capacity magazine. Ensminger referred to the Dunkin v. Becerra case that recently struck down some provision of PC section 32310, related to the same thing the defendant is charged with. He argued this charge needs to be struck.
For Count 11, defendant was charged with PC section 496(a), related to stolen tools that were found in the back of a vehicle. Defense argued the vehicle was not tied to the defendant.
Judge Sumner interrupted again asking if the tools were found in the Chevy Silverado from Count 3. Ensminger said yes, they were found in that car, and in Count 3 the victim stated the car was the defendant’s.
Lastly, for the count involving possession of hydrocodone, defense argued that he lived with his parents and a former co-defendant at the time. Ensminger argued “they were found in a bedroom identified as the defendant’s, but not identified as exclusively under his control.” He said this is not a drug case, so the drug claim should be eliminated.
DDA Jonathan Ma argued the defendant admitted the gun was in his room where it was found, and the pills were found on the table next to the gun.
“I don’t know how you could possibly in good faith argue he didn’t know they were there,” argued DDA Ma. “They were out in the open, next to a firearm, and the officer testified to this,” said Ma.
“I think the circumstantial evidence is quite obvious. The defense’s primary argument is that taking each car individually is an unusual set of facts for which the defendant is not directly tied to any of the normal vehicle theft factors, but when there are eight cars, they are all part of a common plan or scheme,” Ma said.
Ma says the scheme involves taking a stolen car and putting a clean title either in his name, his mom’s, or a buddy’s, and replacing the VIN or license plates of the stolen vehicle with that of a donor car.
Prosecution argued that Counts 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 all share a common mark. He discussed how each car had a hole under the door, on the driver’s side where the lock is. Ma referred to how the earlier testimony of an officer established that this mark was used to unlock cars from the outside.
“The defense’s argument is that we haven’t found the donor vehicle, therefore we have to throw our hands in the air and give up. But the point is not the donor vehicles, the point is the cars were stolen and each tied to the defendant by VIN swap or swapped plates,” Ma said.
Ma said the first car involved a plate registered to the defendant, and the second vehicle was stolen and the defendant was seen driving it. For the third car, the victim said it was the defendant’s car, his property was in it, and the VIN goes back to him, continued Ma.
He said Count 3 leads them to Counts 6 and 7 because paperwork was found in the car that related to these cars. Further, the car in Count 3 related to Count 11 because the stolen tools were found in that car, stated Ma.
Lastly DDA Ma said Count 8 illustrates the scheme the defendant is involved in.
The defendant gets paid for selling the car and deceiving buyers. Ma refers to two situations where both victims bought a car from the defendant, only to realize they bought a car with a different VIN than what was given to them.
DDA Ma closed by stating he would submit on Count 10, as the court case Dunkin v. Becerra struck down that provision.
Judge Sumner found there to be sufficient evidence to hold Jose Ruelas to answer on Counts 1-8 for stolen vehicles, and Counts 9, 11, and 12 for the magazine charge, the stolen tools, and the possession of hydrocodone.
Judge Sumner noted the circumstantial evidence where vehicles that were stolen had donor plates or VINs or both put on, and in each instance the defendant is connected in one or more ways, as already been noted.
A future hearing will be set to discuss trial date or a plea offer.
To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9
