P. v. Harrison
Filed 6/7/06 P. v. Harrison CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 TWO
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LARRY L. HARRISON, Defendant and Appellant. | B179691 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA265715) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Ruth A. Kwan, Judge. Affirmed.
Derek K. Kowata, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Jaime L. Fuster, Chung Mar and G. Tracey Letteau, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
______________
Larry L. Harrison (defendant) appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial resulting in his conviction of second degree robbery, with a true finding that he had personally used a firearm. (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 12022.53, subd. (b).)[1] The jury also made true findings that the offense was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) and that defendant had committed the offense while he was released on bail in another pending prosecution (§ 12022.1). The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 15 years in state prison and pursuant to section 1465.8, imposed a court security fee of $20.
He contends that (1) the prosecutor committed misconduct during final argument, and in the alternative, trial counsel's representation was constitutionally inadequate as counsel failed to object to prosecutorial misconduct, (2) the evidence is insufficient to support the gang enhancement, and (3) the $20 court security fee is unauthorized.
We are not persuaded by the contentions and affirm the judgment.
THE TRIAL EVIDENCE
1. The People's Case-in-chief
A. Victim Smarttsmith's Testimony
At about 8:30 a.m. on May 18, 2004, Ronale Smarttsmith (Smarttsmith) was walking northbound on Compton Boulevard in Los Angeles approaching Slauson Avenue. He was talking on his Sprint Camera cellular telephone. A 1995 blue Chevrolet Caprice occupied by four to six youths drove up next to him. Its driver, a youth he knew as â€
