Filed 10/16/17 P. v. Bracy CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

Following a preliminary hearing, the Solano County District Attorney filed an information charging defendant Ventor Leroy Bracy with the felony offense of second-degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). Defendant pleaded not guilty.

A jury trial was held in November 2016. The victim testified concerning the circumstances of the robbery that occurred two years earlier on November 29, 2014. On the day of incident, the victim, wearing a backpack, rode his bicycle to a pharmacy. He purchased a bottle of vodka and milk, placed them in a plastic bag, and left the pharmacy. Once outside, the victim attempted to unlock his bicycle. Without warning, he was assaulted by two men, who punched him with their fists, and asked for his backpack and the plastic bag. The victim fought back, but the robbers were able to take the plastic bag and run away. The incident lasted at most 15 seconds. The victim was a little dazed, but suffered no major injuries. The jury was shown the pharmacy’s video surveillance tape, which showed the two robbers and the victim in the store at the same time, with the robbers leaving the pharmacy followed by the victim, but the tape did not show the actual robbery outside the pharmacy. A pharmacy employee reported the incident to the police. While in a patrol car several blocks from the pharmacy, a police officer saw a man, later identified as defendant, and another man running along the sidewalk. Defendant was carrying a vodka bottle. He looked in the police officer’s direction and threw the vodka bottle into a nearby shopping cart.^[1] The police officer got out of his patrol car, yelled “the police,” and detained and handcuffed defendant. The other man was later detained and handcuffed as well. The victim was taken to the area were the men had been detained. From inside the patrol car, the victim identified both detained men as the robbers; the victim could not see if the men were handcuffed but knew they were in police custody. The identification occurred several minutes after the robbery. The victim recognized both men “basically” by their clothing as the victim had not seen “their faces very well.” One man wore distinctive pants, “blue and white, looked like a cloud,” and had a hoodie over his head; and the other man wore a dark green or black “zip-up type and pullover jacket.” After the in-field identification by the victim, the police took the victim back to the pharmacy, where the victim was shown the pharmacy surveillance tape and identified two men seen in the videotape as the two men that had robbed him and he had identified at the show-up. At trial, the victim testified that defendant looked “familiar,” but the victim “really” could not say if defendant was one of the robbers. Defendant called no witnesses and presented no evidence.

The jury was instructed on the charged robbery offense and the lesser included offense of petty theft. After deliberations, the jury returned a guilty verdict on the charged offense. At sentencing, the court explained its reasons for placing defendant on formal probation for three years with a condition that he serve 270 days in county jail with credit for time served of one day.

Defendant’s appellate counsel has filed a brief raising no issues and asks us to independently review the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). As required under People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124, we affirmatively note appellate counsel has informed defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief and no supplemental brief has been filed. We have independently examined the entire record in accordance with Wende, and agree with appellate counsel that there are no issues warranting further briefing.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

_________________________

Jenkins, J.

We concur:

_________________________

Pollak, Acting P. J.

_________________________

Siggins, J.