Filed 11/28/05 P. v. Owens 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. DERRICK D. OWENS, Defendant and Appellant.

B177369 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA240414)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Michael E. Pastor, Judge. Affirmed.

Sally P. Brajevich, 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, Keith H. Borjon and Sharlene A. Honnaka, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________

Derrick D. Owens appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial resulting in his convictions of four counts of first degree robbery, with a finding that in the commission of the count 6 robbery, he personally used a firearm (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 12022.53, subd. (b); counts 6, 7, 11 & 12),[1] of three counts of second degree robbery (§ 211; counts 2, 5 & 8), and of attempted first degree robbery (§§ 664/211; count 10).[2] The trial court sentenced appellant to an aggregate term of 23 years eight months in state prison.

He contends that (1) the evidence of his identity as the robber is insufficient to support his convictions, (2) the pretrial photographic identification procedures were unduly suggestive, (3) the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion to sever, (4) appellant was entitled to have prepared reporter's transcripts of the trial for the purpose of making his motion for a new trial, (5) the trial court improperly denied his Pitchess motion (Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess)), (6) the trial court had a duty sua sponte to charge the jury with CALJIC No. 2.80, concerning how the jury should evaluate expert opinion testimony, and (7) at sentencing, the trial court committed Blakely error (Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 (Blakely)).

We find his contentions to be meritless, and we affirm the judgment.

THE FACTS

Introductory Facts

Appellant was accused in a nine-count information of eight first and second degree robberies and of one attempted robbery. The prosecutor claimed that appellant had engaged in a one-man, one-month robbery spree in October and November 2002, robbing business owners in the area of his mother's residence and calling taxicabs to that area and then robbing the drivers. At trial, appellant did not challenge that the robberies and attempted robbery had occurred; the only issue was identity. We state the identification evidence at the trial in some detail so as to avoid any distortion of that evidence.

Count 5 (formerly Count 13) ‑‑ Kunil Kim and the King Beauty Supply

On November 19, 2002, Kunil Kim (Kim) was working as a cashier at Yoon Moon's King Beauty Supply Store, located in the strip mall at 4501 Martin Luther King Boulevard in Los Angeles. On that date, a man entered the store, walked around, and then asked Kim whether he spoke English. The man then handed Kim a note written in English, which said, â€