P. v. Espinoza

Filed 1/17/07  P. v. Espinoza CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

            APPEAL from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Rand S. Rubin, Judge.  Affirmed.

            Charles B. Holzhauer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Hugo Espinoza.

            The Chase Law Group and Lorilee M. Gates for Defendant and Appellant Giovanni Antonio Zelaya. 

            Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters and Susan  Sullivan Pithey, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________________

            Appellants Hugo Espinoza and Giovanni Antonio Zelaya argue that evidence is insufficient to support one of the robbery convictions against them and insufficient to support true findings on firearm and gang allegations.  They also argue that a photographic lineup was impermissibly suggestive and violated their due process rights.  Finally, Zelaya argues that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing amendment of the information.  We affirm the judgments. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

            On July 17, 2004, Carlos Narvaez and Rocky Camara were riding their bicycles.  Appellants drove up to them in a black Nissan with a large white primer spot on the rear of the car.  They exited the car and Zelaya shouted, â€