THE PEOPLE v. DAVID PARKER (2011)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

David Parker (Parker) and Anthony Bowie (Bowie) (collectively appellants) appeal from the judgments entered upon Parker's convictions of three counts of second degree robbery (Pen.Code, § 211, counts 1–3) ¹ and Bowie's convictions of two counts of second degree robbery (counts 5 & 6).²  The jury found to be true with regard to counts 1 and 2 the allegation that Parker personally used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (b),³ and with regard to counts 5 and 6 the allegation that a principal was armed with a firearm within the meaning of section 12022, subdivision (a)(1).   Bowie admitted that he had suffered two prior felony strike convictions within the meaning of sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i) and 1170, subdivisions (a) through (d) and two prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b).  The trial court sentenced Parker and Bowie to state prison terms of 17 years four months and 33 years, respectively.   Parker contends that there is insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction of count 1, and Bowie contends there is insufficient evidence to sustain his convictions of counts 5 and 6.

We affirm.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Gardena robbery

The robbery

On May 28, 2009, at approximately 2:45 p.m., Eericka Frazier (Frazier) was working at Cash America, a check cashing business, in Gardena.   Two Black men entered.   Frazier estimated them to be 18 or 19 years old.   One man wore a white hooded sweatshirt, which a surveillance camera showed had a pattern on it, and the other man, who followed him inside, wore a blue hooded sweatshirt, with yellow gloves.   Both hoods were down.

The man in the white sweatshirt pointed a gun at Frazier.   She could only see the barrel.   Both men jumped over the counter.   The man in blue grabbed Frazier and forced her to go and lock the door.   He then told her to open the safe.   She was unable to open the main section, but could release four tubes, containing $200 each, which she gave to the men.   They took the tubes and left, walking towards the Payless Foods market.   Frazier immediately pushed the alarm and called the police.

The man in blue had a cell phone during the robbery.   A surveillance video showed that one of two men running near a bike rack next to Payless Foods market dropped a cell phone.

The crime scene investigation

Shortly after the robbery, Detective Brian Messina found a silver cell phone under a bike rack adjacent to the Payless Foods market.   After obtaining a search warrant, he examined the phone and determined that the number associated with it was (310) 686–9139.   The cell phone contained at least 20 photos, mostly of Parker.   When Detective Messina called that phone, he heard at the end of the automated outgoing voicemail message a “male voice [say] ‘Parker.’ ”

Detective Messina saw in the cell phone that on the day of the robbery, “[t]here were calls to and from a name stored as Y.G. [that was traced to Bowie] before the robbery and after the robbery.”   Y.G.'s phone number was listed in that phone as (323) 399–9264.   The first call was outgoing at 2:02 p.m. There were three calls between 2:32 and 2:43 p.m. from cell phone number (323) 399–9264 to the cell phone found by Detective Messina.   Police were first notified of the Gardena robbery at 2:47 p.m.

Identifying the perpetrators

On June 2, 2009, Frazier failed to identify anyone in a photographic lineup shown to her by police.

On June 4, 2009, after receiving the photographic lineup advisement, Frazier was shown two additional photographic six-packs.   She circled the photograph of Parker in the number six position, initialed it, placed the date on it and wrote that the man “looks similar to the one with the gun [who wore the white sweatshirt], but not him, only similar.”   Frazier explained at trial, “I said [it] could be him or it couldn't be him.   I wasn't entirely sure.”   He was “the closest person that I could identify” but she was “not definitively ruling that person out[.]”

Frazier did not identify either robber at the preliminary hearing or at trial.   However, she identified the yellow gloves taken in the search of Parker's residence as those worn by the robber in the blue sweatshirt, and the gun recovered from Parker as the gun that was pointed at her.

The Carson robbery

The robbery

On June 3, 2009, at approximately 12:20 p.m., Sofia Jimenez (Jimenez) was working at Check ‘N Go, in Carson, a check cashing business.   Cithanie Elliassaint (Elliassaint), the store manager, was working in the back of the office, behind a partition that had a window.   Two Black men walked into the store.   Jimenez estimated them to be between 18 and 25 years old.   One of the men wore a black hoodie and carried a pillowcase, and the other wore a white hoodie, “with black and gray prints,” and black and yellow gloves.   The hoods were up, preventing Jimenez from clearly seeing much of their faces.

The man in white, followed by the man in black, approached Jimenez and pulled out a gun, with a rusty brown barrel, pointed it at Jimenez, and demanded money.   The men followed her behind the counter.   The man in the black hoodie took about $1,500 to $2,000 from the cash drawers and placed the money in the pillowcase.   After that, the man in white left the store, the man in the black hoodie remaining there for several minutes.   He “was jittery” and made a cell phone call and said, “[Y]ou need to hurry up,” or “[W]here are you at?․”   A male voice responded over the cell phone, “You hurry up.”   The man in the black sweatshirt left when a customer entered the store.   Jimenez did not notice where he went.

Elliassaint saw part of the robbery through the partition window and could hear part of it, including someone saying, “Hurry up.   Where are you at.”   She did not see a gun used.   Her observations of the men were similar to Jimenez's.   She pressed the silent alarm.

The crime scene investigation

In response to the silent alarm, Deputy Sheriff Jorge Castellanos went to Check ‘N Go. After a minute or two, he saw a Black male exit and walk away, holding a “cloth item” in one hand and what might have been a cell phone to the side of his face with his other hand.   Deputy Castellanos got a good look at the man's face and yelled for him to, “Stop. Let me see your hands.”   The man ran.   Deputy Castellanos broadcast the man's description.

Within an hour, Detective Jay DeBoom detained Leroy Holliman (Holliman) three tenths of a mile from the robbery scene.   Detective DeBoom told Holliman he was investigating a crime, without mentioning the location of the crime or the type of crime.   Holliman replied that he was “not the person [the detective] was looking for, that he was a lookout, and that the two guys that committed the crime had left the location in a white newer Ford Expedition.”

Deputy Castellanos saw Holliman in Detective DeBoom's patrol car and immediately recognized him as the man who ran from him less than an hour earlier.   Holliman was arrested.   He told Deputy Castellanos that two Black males approached him and asked if he wanted to participate in a robbery.   He agreed to participate and drove with them to Check ‘N Go. He went inside and acted as a lookout.   One of the other men told him to take the money, which he grabbed and ran.

Detective Marc Boskovich investigated the Carson robbery.   He went to the crime scene and reviewed a surveillance video.   He also looked at a flyer from the Gardena Police Department regarding the Gardena robbery and noticed that the photo in the flyer showed a person wearing a white sweatshirt with a black design that was the same as that worn by one of the Carson robbers.   This observation led to coordination of the investigation of the two robberies.

Holliman's subsequent statements

At the Carson station after his arrest, Holliman told Detective Boskovich that two men in an Expedition, one identifying himself to Holliman as “Y.G.,” asked if he wanted to smoke a blunt.   Holliman got into the vehicle, and the men in the Expedition said they were going to commit a robbery, and warned that if Holliman did not participate they would kill him.   They gave Holliman a sweatshirt, hat and gloves to wear into the store.   At Check ‘N Go, Holliman and the man in the white hoodie went inside.

Twenty minutes later, when Holliman was in a cell, he told Detective Boskovich that Bowie was Y.G., and a person named “Blue” was the man with the gun.   He said they planned the robbery the night before.   He described his involvement consistently with what he had previously stated.

By the time of trial, Holliman had pled no contest to committing the Carson robbery and was sentenced to two years in prison.   He agreed to testify truthfully in exchange for a reduced sentence and was released from custody one week after the preliminary hearing.

At the trial, Holliman testified that he was a friend of Bowie from the neighborhood, and they agreed the day before the robbery to commit a robbery, though no date for the robbery was discussed.   Holliman described that on the day of the robbery, at approximately 9:00 a.m. he was walking, and Bowie drove up in a white Expedition.   Holliman got into the car, and they smoked marijuana.   Holliman fell asleep as they drove around, eventually arriving outside Check ‘N Go. There, Holliman saw Bowie talking to Parker, who was introduced to Holliman as “Blue.” Holliman had never seen Parker before.   Parker was wearing a white and black hoodie with the hood up.   He also wore black and yellow gloves.   Bowie said that he would be the getaway driver.   Holliman had a cell phone and a beige pillowcase.

Holliman followed Parker into Check ‘N Go. Inside, Parker pulled out a gun and told Holliman to go around the counter and take the money.   Holliman took the money and put it in the pillowcase.   He eventually realized that Parker had left the store.   Holliman “got scared” and used his cell phone to call Bowie.   When the cashier told him that a customer was coming, Holliman left.

Outside, while Holliman was running from the deputies, he again phoned Bowie.   Holliman asked Bowie where he was located and was told he was “in the area.”   As Holliman ran through the neighborhood, he took off his hoodie and outer clothes and put them, along with the pillowcase, into a trash can.

Identifying the perpetrators

Holliman identified his cell phone, the white sweatshirt depicted in the Gardena surveillance photograph as the sweatshirt Parker wore during the Carson robbery and the gloves obtained in the search of Parker's residence as the gloves Parker wore.   He also identified the gun taken from Parker when Parker was arrested as looking like the gun used in the Carson robbery.

On the day of the robbery, Jimenez and Elliassaint were taken to a field showup and the following day shown a photographic lineup.   They failed to identify appellants.

At trial, Jimenez did not recognize appellants.   Before trial, however, she had told a detective that she would not identify anyone because her family's safety was more important than her job.   However, she was shown a surveillance photograph of the sweatshirt from the Gardena robbery, which, based on the “print” and the color, she said “look[ed] similar” to the white hoodie one of the robbers wore.   She also looked at the pair of black and yellow gloves taken in the search of Parker's residence and said that they were similar to the gloves that the man in the white hoodie wore.   Jimenez also thought that the gun taken from Parker when he was arrested was “similar” to the gun that the robber used.

The coordinated investigation of the two robberies

Parker's arrest

On June 10, 2009, near 8:20 p.m., Deputy Joshua Corrales and his partner, Deputy Jonathan Cooper, stopped a car with three occupants.   Parker was a passenger in the backseat.   As Deputy Corrales was exiting his car and approaching, he saw Parker move furtively, suggesting that he was hiding something in front of him.   Parker was stepping on a small black travel bag under the front passenger seat.   The deputies ordered him out of the car.   The bag contained a loaded, operable revolver.

In the backseat, Deputy Cooper saw gloves that had a yellow print.   Parker was wearing a “hooded sweater, [which was] white with dark print around it.”   Unaware of the two robberies at the time of Parker's arrest, the deputies did not take the sweatshirt or gloves as they had no information as to their relevance.   At trial, however, Deputy Corrales identified the sweatshirt in the Gardena surveillance photograph as the sweatshirt he saw Parker wearing.   During the detention and arrest, Parker told the deputies that “he was also known by the name of ‘Blue.’ ”

Parker's statement

Detectives Michael Ross and Messina interviewed Parker on audiotape, primarily regarding the Carson robbery.   In that interview, Parker said that he did not commit any crime, and that he “didn't do anything [at all].”   But when the detectives told Parker that they had a video of the Carson robbery, Parker stated that he “walked out.”   He added, “I didn't take nothing.   That's why I left.”   He also stated, “I done seen it, period.   That's why I just left.”   He argued to the detectives, “it's not a robbery then if I didn't take nothing [.]”  Parker made similar comments when apparently referring to the Gardena robbery, stating:  “This one I didn't take anything either.”

Search of appellant's residences

On June 12, 2009, Detective Boskovich, and Detective Ross, the investigating officer of the Gardena robbery, searched appellants' residences.   At Bowie's residence, they recovered a cell phone from the bathroom (Bowie cell phone).   The background on the phone appeared to be Bowie.   The assigned phone number for that phone was (323) 399–9264.   Bowie was arrested.

In an audio-taped phone call while Bowie was in jail, he complained to an unidentified woman that he did not know where his cell phone was, and when he tried to call it, his call went “straight to voicemail.”   She explained to him that “they” took his phone from the bathroom.   She told Bowie, “everyone's been caught․”  The court instructed the jury that the parties disputed whether she used the word “caught” or “calling” and that the jury had to decide which word was used.

In a search of Parker's residence, Detective Messina found yellow and black baseball batting gloves on a bed, near a jury summons with Parker's name on it and the address of the residence that was being searched.   Detective Messina recognized the gloves from the video of the Gardena robbery.

Bowie and Holliman's cell phones

The subscriber to the Bowie cell phone was Brenda Young.   The contact numbers in that cell phone included the numbers of the cell phone that Detective Messina found on May 28, 2009, with the name “Tanna Blue” next to it, and Holliman's cell phone number.   The cell phone records for the Bowie cell phone showed that the day before the Gardena robbery, and the day of that robbery, that cell phone was used and connected to the cell phone tower near the robbery scene.   This meant that the person using the cell phone was no more than two miles from the tower.   Similarly, the cell phone records showed similar calls the day before and day of the Carson robbery.

As reflected on the phone records for the Bowie cell phone and on Holliman's cell phone, on the day of the Carson robbery, between 12:28 p.m. and 12:35 p.m. there were seven calls from the Holliman's cell phone to the Bowie cell phone and three calls between 12:29 and 12:32 from the Bowie cell phone to Holliman's cell phone.   The calls were made through a cell phone tower in the Carson area.   According to the Sheriff's Department's records, Detective DeBoom began chasing Holliman at 12:27 p.m. In Holliman's phone, the number listed for both Y.G. and Y.G. 95 was (323) 399–9264.   The phone number listed for Holliman's phone was (323) 239–1862.

The handgun

On June 15, 2009, Detective Boskovich saw the gun recovered from Parker when he was arrested.   He stated that “It appear[ed] to be the same firearm as described by the victims in the Carson robbery.”   He showed the gun to Jimenez who identified it as appearing similar to the gun used in the Carson robbery.

DISCUSSION

I. Sufficiency of evidence to support Parker's conviction of the Gardena robbery

A. Contention

Parker contends that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction of the Gardena robbery (count 1).   He argues that “to convict [him] of count 1 it had to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that [he] participated in the robbery of Frazier or aided and abetted in that robbery by various acts․”  He claims that the evidence fails to meet that high standard.   This contention is without merit.

B. Standard of review

“A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence requires us to determine, after review of the whole record, whether the evidence is such that a reasonable trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was the perpetrator of the charged crime.”  (People v. Edelbacher (1989) 47 Cal.3d 983, 1019.)  “In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  [Citations.]”  (People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331.)   We resolve all conflicts in the evidence and questions of credibility in favor of the verdict and indulge every reasonable inference the jury could draw from the evidence.  (People v. Autry (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 351, 358.)  “ ‘[T]he appellate court presumes in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.’   [Citation.]  This standard applies whether direct or circumstantial evidence is involved.”  (People v. Catlin (2001) 26 Cal.4th 81, 139.)   Circumstantial evidence and inferences from it are alone sufficient to sustain a conviction.   (See People v. Adair (2003) 29 Cal.4th 895, 909;  see also People v. Palaschak (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1236, 1242.)   Reversal on this ground is unwarranted unless ‘ “upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support [the conviction].’ ”  (People v. Bolin, supra, at p. 331.)

C. Evidence supporting conviction

In an effort to establish that there is insufficient evidence that he was the person involved in the Gardena robbery, Parker attempts to evaluate each piece of evidence against him in isolation, pointing out its weaknesses.   However, we must evaluate the evidence as a whole.   When so analyzed, we conclude that Parker's conviction of the Gardena robbery rests on solid evidentiary footing.

Though Frazier failed to identify either of the suspects at the preliminary hearing and at trial, a few days after the robbery, she did select Parker's photograph from 12 photographs contained in two six-packs as someone who “looks similar to the one with the gun [who wore the white sweatshirt], but not him, only similar.”   Frazier explained at trial, “I said [it] could be him or it couldn't be him.   I wasn't entirely sure.”   He was “the closest person that I could identify” but she was “not definitively ruling that person out[.]”  While this identification was weak and by itself insufficient to sustain Parker's conviction of the Gardena robbery, it, together with the other evidence, was sufficient.

Parker was identified as being involved in the Gardena robbery by his attire.   Frazier identified the yellow gloves recovered in the search of Parker's residence as those worn by one of the robbers, and, though she only saw the barrel of the gun, she testified that the gun confiscated from Parker when he was arrested looked like the gun that was used by the robber in the white sweatshirt.⁴  Holliman identified Parker as wearing the same white and black hooded sweatshirt during the Carson robbery as was worn by one of the robbers in the Gardena robbery, and the gun confiscated from Parker when he was arrested as the gun used in the Carson robbery.   Jimenez also thought that gun looked like the gun used by the Carson robber in the white hoodie.   Deputy Corrales testified that the white sweatshirt worn by one of the Gardena robbers caught on surveillance video was the same sweatshirt Parker was wearing on the night of his arrest.

Parker's cell phone was found near the scene of the Gardena robbery.   Frazier testified that the robbers left Cash America and went towards the Payless Food Market.   A surveillance camera at that market caught one of two men running near an adjacent bike rack drop a cell phone.   After the robbery, Detective Messina found a silver cell phone under a bike rack next to the Payless Food Market.   The cell phone contained numerous photographs of Parker and when called, the voicemail message contained a male voice saying “Parker.”   Bowie's phone number was listed on the cell phone's contact list under the name Y.G., Bowie's nickname.   There were calls on that phone from and to Y.G. at 2:02 p.m. and three calls between 2:32 and 2:43 p.m. from the Bowie cell phone to the cell phone found by Detective Messina.   These calls were made at the same time as the robbery was occurring.

Parker's statement to police after his arrest provides further evidence of his involvement in the Gardena robbery.   While the subject of most of that interview was the Carson robbery, there was a statement made that appeared to be referring to his involvement in the Gardena robbery.   Parker admitted his presence at the Carson robbery but claimed he did not commit the robbery because he did not take anything, his accomplice did.   When referring to a robbery other than the Carson robbery, Parker made similar comments, stating:  “This one I didn't take anything either.”

Finally, Parker's admission of involvement in the Carson robbery, his convictions of which are unchallenged on appeal, because of its striking resemblance to the Gardena robbery justifies an inference that he was involved in both.   Both robberies occurred not far from each other.   In both cases, two Black men robbed a check cashing business, a gun was used, the perpetrators wore hooded sweatshirts, one wearing a dark one (blue or black) and the other wearing a white one with a black design, the man in the white sweatshirt appeared to lead entry into the victims' business, and the perpetrators asked the employee to open the safe, but took other monies when told that the employee was unable to promptly open the store safe.

These facts taken in combination present a strong circumstantial case establishing Parker's presence and participation in the Gardena robbery.

II. Sufficiency of evidence to support Bowie's convictions of the Carson robbery

A. Contention

Bowie contends that there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions of the Carson robbery in counts 5 and 6, thereby depriving him of due process under the United States Constitution.   He argues there is insufficient evidence “that [he] committed the robbery as the Getaway driver” because the “almost exclusive[ ]” evidence against him was the testimony of Holliman, who was thoroughly impeached at trial, gave multiple conflicting stories of the robbery and agreed to give testimony only upon being promised that he would be released from prison and placed on probation.   Bowie argues that he cannot be convicted on the testimony of an accomplice alone.   We conclude that while this is a close case, there is adequate evidence to corroborate Holliman's testimony and support Bowie's convictions.

B. Conviction on an accomplice's testimony

Section 1111 provides that accomplice testimony must be corroborated.⁵  A conviction based solely upon an accomplice's testimony cannot be sustained.   (People v. Verlinde (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1146, 1157;  In re Mitchell P. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 946, 949.)   This requirement derives from the notion that evidence of an accomplice should be viewed with care, caution and suspicion because it comes from a tainted source and is often given in the hope or expectation of leniency or immunity.  (People v. Wallin (1948) 32 Cal.2d 803, 808.)

The corroboration must, without aid from the accomplice's testimony, connect the defendant to the charged offense, but may be circumstantial, slight and entitled to little consideration when standing alone.  (People v. Davis (2005) 36 Cal.4th 510, 543;  People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, 982.)   Corroborating evidence need not be sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt or corroborate the accomplice to every fact to which the accomplice testified.  (People v. Traub (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 709, 712;  People v. Davis, supra, at p. 543.)   It must raise more than a suspicion or conjecture of guilt, and is sufficient if it connects the defendant with the crime in such a way as to reasonably satisfy the trier of fact as to the truthfulness of the accomplice.  (People v. Hooker (1954) 126 Cal.App.2d 394, 401;  People v. Davis, supra, at p. 543.)

C. Evidence supporting convictions

There was sufficient evidence of Bowie's participation in the Carson robbery and to corroborate Holliman's testimony.   Holliman unequivocally identified Bowie as his accomplice in the Carson robbery.   He testified that he was a friend of Bowie from the neighborhood.   Bowie and Holliman discussed committing the robbery the day before it occurred.   Holliman said that on the day of the robbery, Bowie picked him up in an Expedition, and they drove to Check ‘N Go. Parker met them there, and he and Holliman entered the store and robbed Jimenez and Elliassaint.   Bowie was the self-designated getaway driver.   Parker left the store a few minutes before Holliman.   When Holliman realized he was alone, he used his cell phone to call Bowie.   Outside, when Holliman was running from the police, he again spoke with Bowie on the cell phone.   This testimony, if adequately corroborated, is by itself sufficient to support Bowie's convictions notwithstanding Holliman's credibility issues.   They were for the jury to assess.

There is more than slight corroborating evidence here to connect Bowie to the Carson robbery and to support the truthfulness of Holliman's trial testimony.   Holliman's cell phone had Bowie's number listed in the contact list under “Y.G.,” corroborating that there was some relationship between them.   As reflected on the phone records for the Bowie cell phone and on Holliman's cell phone, on the day of the Carson robbery, between 12:28 p.m. and 12:35 p.m., there were seven calls from Holliman's cell phone to the Bowie cell phone and, between 12:29 and 12:32 p.m., three calls from the Bowie cell phone to Holliman's cell phone.   The calls were made through a cell phone tower in the Carson area and occurred at the exact time of the robbery and Holliman's flight, corroborating Holliman's testimony and justifying an inference that Bowie was involved in the robbery.

Expert testimony further bolstered this inference.   It established that the day before both robberies, Bowie's cell phone reflected calls from cell phone towers near the two robbery sites.   Such calls had to be within two miles of the tower to be picked up by the tower.   This was believed by officers to indicate that Bowie was “casing” the locations for the subsequent robberies.   (See People v. Spivak (1959) 166 Cal.App.2d 796, 810–811 [testimony of witness other than accomplice that day or two before robbery the witness accompanied the defendant and another person to an area near the home of the robbery victim and defendant fled town even though paid a week's work in advance is sufficient corroboration].)   The weight to be given to this corroborative evidence was for the jury.  (People v. Piascik (1958) 159 Cal.App.2d 622, 627.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

ASHMANN–GERST

We concur:

FOOTNOTES

FN1. All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated..  FN1. All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

FN2. The jury was unable to reach a verdict against Bowie on count 4 for second degree robbery, and the trial court declared a mistrial on that count..  FN2. The jury was unable to reach a verdict against Bowie on count 4 for second degree robbery, and the trial court declared a mistrial on that count.

FN3. 3. The jury found the section 12022.53, subdivision (b) allegation to be untrue as to count 3..  FN3. 3. The jury found the section 12022.53, subdivision (b) allegation to be untrue as to count 3.

FN4. Jimenez also identified the same yellow and black gloves as the gloves worn by the robber in the white sweatshirt during the Carson robbery..  FN4. Jimenez also identified the same yellow and black gloves as the gloves worn by the robber in the white sweatshirt during the Carson robbery.

FN5. Section 1111 provides:  “A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless it be corroborated by such other evidence as shall tend to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense;  and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof.  [¶] An accomplice is hereby defined as one who is liable to prosecution for the identical offense charged against the defendant on trial in the cause in which the testimony of the accomplice is given.”.  FN5. Section 1111 provides:  “A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless it be corroborated by such other evidence as shall tend to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense;  and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof.  [¶] An accomplice is hereby defined as one who is liable to prosecution for the identical offense charged against the defendant on trial in the cause in which the testimony of the accomplice is given.”

_, P.J. BOREN _, J. CHAVEZ