Marathon Preliminary Hearing Ends as Judge Rules Accused Mobile Phone Robbers Should Stand Trial

By Tiffany Devlin and Kelly Moran

SACRAMENTO In a preliminary hearing that stretched over weeks, and a case that is more than two years old, a Sacramento County Superior Court judge found two men guilty enough to stand trial for allegedly participating in a one-day mobile phone store robbery spree.

They will be arraigned Nov. 13 on charges, and a trial date set.

Defendants David Fritz and Glenn Burgler faced Judge Stacy Boulware Eurie in Dept. 18, with Fritz appearing in person along with his public defender, while Burgler called in to the hearing via Zoom out of custody. Deputy District Attorney Matthew Moore joined the call via Zoom.

Both Fritzs defense attorney, John Gonzales, and Burglers defense attorney, Carmen Butler made unsuccessful attempts at reducing the charges and striking the enhancements against their clients.

The co-defendants are charged in a four-count felony complaint with robbing a T-Mobile store and a Verizon store on June 10, 2018. Burgler is alleged to have been personally armed with a handgun. It is alleged the duo stole $39,000 worth of cell phones.

Gonzales argued against Fritzs enhancement, claiming that out of the four other members who took part in the robbery, they already pled out two other people for non-personal use, so they have to put personal use on somebody, and the only person left is my client.

John Dossey and Kyle Mangiola were both found guilty of their involvement in the robbery and are both serving jail sentences in Folsom State Prison and San Quentin State Prison, respectively, since March of 2020.

According to Gonzales, all of the physical evidence, including the gun, and the clothes and motorcycle helmet identified from security footage, was found at Mr. Mangiolas house, the other African American person involved in this four person conspiracy to robbery, so I dont know how we come to the conclusion its Mr. Fritzs whos the one personally using this firearm other than we have Mr. Mangiola trying to save himself, make a deal with the DA, and he lied four times prior.

DDA Moore admitted that its clear that [Mangiola] is lying at times to protect himself but that neither defense attorney has pointed to any reason that he would falsely (implicate) the two defendants in this case.

Gonzales also argued that the gun was never even used at the Verizon store, the second stop in the robbery, even though the prosecution includes it in their case against Fritz.

He pushed the argument further saying, simply having a gun in your pocket, in your waistband, is not personal use.

Gonzales also described the scene from inside the Verizon store, which was caught on the stores surveillance system, and said, There were very large sweatshirts that were covering their waistbands, you cant even see a gun.

Moore fired back.

In terms of the use of the firearm, I disagree with Mr. Gonzales, he said, clearly (defendant) uses it in the first case, and by the jury instruction which simply requires that he display it in a menacing manner, he used it in the second case as well. And that actually is captured on the surveillance, you can see him motioning towards his waistband, in the exact way that the victim described, and that was done for one purpose, to intimidate the victim.

Judge Eurie turned to Butler to make any remaining points.

All of the items connected with the robbery were found at the homes of the two gentlemen who already pled out, said Butler, affirming what Gonzales suggested earlier. Kyle Mangiola, she continued, a loaded firearm was found at his home and its actually registered to him.

Overall, Butler asked the judge to focus her attention on the robbery that occurred at 11:45 a.m., where there has been insufficient evidence that Mr. Glenn had any connection to that incident.

DDA Matthew Moore admitted that its clear that [Mangiola] is lying at times to protect himself but that neither defense attorney has pointed to any reason that he would falsely implement the two defendants in this case.

Earlier in the week, Det. Anthony Brantley said, based on the T-Mobile surveillance footage, the first suspect that brandished the firearm was wearing all black with a blue and yellow multi-colored motorcycle helmet.

He said the second suspect was wearing dark clothing and a backpack with distinctive vertical zippers. A white t-shirt was also seen on the suspect. The suspects shoes were black with a white sole. The motorcycle helmet was black with a gold design.

Based on the Verizon surveillance footage, the first suspect was wearing a helmet that resembled the black and gold helmet that the second suspect in the T-Mobile robbery was wearing. The first suspect also had the same build as the first suspect in the T-Mobile robbery.

The second suspect in the Verizon robbery was seen wearing the same clothing seen on the second suspect in the T-Mobile robbery, except now he was wearing a clown motorcycle helmet. A Nike symbol was also observed on the suspects black shoes with white soles, which was not as visible in the T-Mobile robbery.

Moore asked Det. Brantley about two witnesses that he spoke with on June 18, 2018, and July 13, 2020. They knew two individuals that will be called suspect A and suspect B, both separate suspects than those seen in the robberies.

On June 10, 2018, the witnesses were at suspect As house for his childs birthday party. One of the witnesses saw a man coming out of the house upon arrival, to which he was introduced as suspect As boy named Dave. An individual named Glenn was also at the house.

The witness was shown a six-pack photo lineup, which contained defendant Fritz. The witness picked Fritz out of the lineup as Dave, the person he was introduced to at the party. The same witness was also shown a six-pack photo lineup that contained defendant Burgler, to which he knew as Glenn that was seen at the house.

Det. Brantley claimed that the witness saw suspect A and Fritz leave the house in a van, while suspect B and Burgler left on their motorcycles. The four men returned to the house later that evening.

According to the witness, suspect A seemed upset and went inside briefly with suspect B. Burgler and Fritz stayed outside. The witness followed suspect A and suspect B once they went back outside. The witness saw Fritz leave in a separate vehicle other than the van and the motorcycles.

When the witness went back into the house, suspect B came into the house shortly after with a black and blue duffel bag. The witness overheard suspect B say, you can call me El Chapo.

Burgler, suspect A, and suspect B all went into a separate bedroom. The witness went into the room and saw that the black and blue duffel bag contained numerous cell phones and tablet devices that filled the whole bag, where suspect A stated that they just had a come up.

Defense attorney Carmen Butler, who represented Burgler, objected for multiple levels of hearsay. I believe this is the Det. testifying about what the witness told him that he heard the other individuals say, so there are multiple levels there of hearsay.

It is a co-conspirator statement. Suspect A conspired with suspect B and defendants Burgler and Fritz to do the robbery in this case, and these are ongoing statements following that, so that is the one level of hearsay and of course the conveyance of that from the witness to Det. Brantley is under (Proposition) 115. Moore concluded.

Suspect A is not here to be cross-examined about whether or not that statement is accurate, Butler replied. I dont see what other purpose it is offered for, other than to say the come up is the equivalent of, we committed this robbery and obtained this property.

Judge Eurie overruled. While Moores questioning continued, Det. Brantley was asked about another Det. who executed a search warrant at suspect Bs residence with Det. Brantley.

Moore shar
ed his screen on Zoom to show evidence of the clown helmet, the scorpion helmet, the backpack, and the duffel bag. Det. Brantley confirmed that these were the items that matched the culprits in the Verizon robbery. The black shoes with the white soles and Nike symbol were also found.

Det. Brantley also spoke with another Det. that conducted a search on the same day at suspect As residence. This Det. found a black Springfield 40 caliber handgun in suspect As closet, which was consistent with the gun in the T-Mobile robbery. The Det. also found the blue and yellow helmet that was consistent with the helmet in the T-Mobile robbery.

Moore asked if Det. Brantley spoke with suspect A about the robberies, which he did after his arrest and during a proper interview. Suspect A admitted to being a lookout, and indicated that suspect B, Fritz, and Burgler were involved in the robberies.

Brantley said that suspect A said Burgler was also a lookout, while Fritz and suspect B went into the stores. Burgler and Fritz were on the Harley-Davidson, suspect A was in a van, and suspect B was on the Yamaha. Suspect A claimed that Fritz was armed.

Det. Brantley reviewed two cell phone downloads that were conducted by a different Det.. These downloads were seized during the arrest of suspect A and suspect B. Based on the review of the contents, Det. Brantley was able to determine that the cell phones belonged to suspect A and suspect B.

In suspect Bs phone, there was a text conversation with an individual named David Walmart. In suspect As phone, the same phone number was saved as David OG. Suspect A confirmed that the contact was defendant Fritz.

When Moore shares his screen on Zoom to show the contents of the conversation between suspect Bs phone and David Walmart, Butler objects as hearsay.

There is no proof that these are conversations between them, these are text messages. Theres no indication as to who actually texted these text messages. Butler argued.

The cell phone download comes from a cell phone seized from suspect B. The Det.s review of that phone and the contents of it shows that it belongs to suspect B. The phone number that he is communicating with, first of all is labeled as David, which is the defendant Fritzs first name. Moore explained after Judge Eurie asked about his foundational argument.

In addition, suspect A has the same phone number saved in his phone, which he indicates belongs to defendant FritzTheres no reason to believe that same phone number goes to two different people. Moore continued.

I dont believe suspect B ever made any statements admitting to sending any texts to Mr. Fritz, Butler responded.

These are messages that someone sent from a phone labeled, on one phone, David Walmart. Theres no last name, its not David Fritz, and even if it is Mr. Fritzs phone number, theres no proof that Mr. Fritz is the person who is actually sending the text messages. Butler concluded.

Judge Eurie asked Moore to ask the questions again in order to establish Det. Brantleys testimony to show that David OG and David Walmart are the same person as Fritz. Brantley said that suspect A confirmed that the phone number belonged to Fritz, and upon a photograph of Fritz shown to suspect A, the photo was confirmed to be David OG in his phone. Judge Eurie ruled it to be sufficient for submission.

Further into the testimony, Moore also asked if Det. Brantley saw a text conversation between suspect B and a contact labeled as Glenn. Det. Brantley said yes, and he also saw the same phone number in suspect Bs phone that was labeled as Glenn (Dan Mechanic) in suspect As phone.

Butler objected once again to lack of foundation and hearsay. There is no indication that Mr. Burgler was the person who sent these messages to suspect B. We dont have a statement from suspect B saying, these are messages that I received from Glenn Burgler. concluded Butler.

The reason Im overruling it is in part, suspect A has confirmed by phone number and identification that this phone number belongs to Mr. Burgler. The court does find that there is sufficient foundation laid in terms of the hearsay. reasoned Judge Eurie.

To sign up for our new newsletter Everyday Injustice https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9

Support our work to become a sustaining at $5 $10- $25 per month hit the link:

See the original post here:
ANATOMY OF A ROBBERY: PART II - The Peoples Vanguard of Davis