P. v. Richardson

Filed 5/8/06 P. v. Richardson CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Arthur Harrison, Judge. Affirmed.

Jean Ballantine, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant was jointly tried by jury with three other codefendants. He appeals from his conviction of two counts of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211),^[1] two counts of attempted robbery (§§ 664/211), and one count of felony evading of a police officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2). As to the robbery and attempted robbery counts, the jury found that a principal was armed with a firearm. (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1).) The jury acquitted defendant of one count of robbery and hung on two other counts of robbery. The court declared a mistrial as to those counts which were subsequently dismissed. The jury also made additional written factual findings that the crimes involved planning and that one or more of the victims were particularly vulnerable.

The defendant was correctly sentenced to 10 years in state prison and awarded custody credits of 445 days for actual time served and 65 days conduct credits that were later appropriately corrected to 67 days. The court imposed the upper term on the robbery alleged in count 2, which became the base term, plus one year for the armed enhancement. Consecutive terms of one-third of the middle term were properly imposed on the remaining counts and armed enhancements.

On the evening of February 14, 2004, three men wearing bandanas and hoods to conceal their identities entered a Denny's restaurant and conducted a takeover robbery of some patrons and employees. Some victims had no money with them. One of the robbers was armed with a firearm.

A witness who arrived at the restaurant to take his family to dinner saw there was a robbery in progress. He observed three men leave the restaurant and enter a green Saturn which fled. He followed the car and observed that there were four men in the car. He dialed 911 and advised that he thought a robbery had just occurred and that he was following the getaway vehicle. He stayed in constant communication with the police. He followed the Saturn onto and then off the freeway and through city streets until the police arrived in marked units to take over the chase. He broke off his pursuit after the police took up the chase and directed him to do so. The car that he followed was never out of his sight until the police arrived. A sheriff's helicopter also joined in the pursuit, bathing the getaway car in its spotlight throughout the chase.

At one point a backpack was thrown from the vehicle. It was recovered and contained a loaded handgun. The vehicle later slowed to allow a rear passenger out. He was apprehended after a foot chase. He had a large amount of money in his pocket and stuffed in his socks.

The Saturn was pursed until it entered a dead-end street. The three remaining occupants of the car fled, but were quickly apprehended. Defendant was identified as the driver of the Saturn. Defendant was apprehended within 15 seconds and 50 yards of the getaway car. Inside the car were items of personal property belonging to persons who were in the restaurant at the time of the robbery. One of the codefendants was apprehended wearing knit gloves.

Defendant was properly advised of his constitutional rights which he voluntarily waived. He then made a statement admitting, among other things, to being the driver. His statement that he and the codefendants went to the restaurant to rob it was redacted, pursuant to People v. Aranda (1965) 63 Cal.2d 518 and Bruton v. United States (1968) 391 U.S. 123, to facially eliminate references to other codefendants and admitted into evidence.

A taped conversation between defendant and one of the codefendants, occurring after arrest and advisement of constitutional rights, was properly introduced. The two discussed what they had told the police, and defendant advised the codefendant how to respond to police questioning.

A letter of apology written by defendant to Denny's restaurant was properly introduced into evidence after it was redacted to eliminate references to his codefendants.

The defendant rested without presenting any evidence, as did the other three codefendants.

Defendant has appealed, and at his request we appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a statement of facts, and suggesting potential issues on appeal. Counsel asks us to conduct an independent review of the entire record.

We provided defendant with an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief. He requested an extension to file such a brief and we granted the extension. The time for filing has passed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.

We have now completed our independent review and find no arguable issues.

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

/s/ McKinster

J.

We concur:

/s/ Hollenhorst

Acting P.J.

/s/ King

J.

Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.

Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Apartment Manager Lawyers.

^[1] All further statutory references are to this code unless otherwise stated.