P. v. Simon
Filed
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIAM SIMON, Defendant and Appellant. | E038945 (Super.Ct.No. FVA 019988) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Barry L. Plotkin, Judge. Reversed with directions.
Doris M. Frizzell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Gil Gonzalez, Supervising
Deputy Attorney General, and Andrew Mestman, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant William Simon appeals judgment entered against him after the court discharged a juror for failing to deliberate. After the trial court replaced the holdout juror, the jury convicted defendant of robbery. We conclude the trial court abused its discretion by discharging the juror. The record establishes that the discharged juror deliberated for a reasonable period of time and her discharge constitutes prejudicial error.
Defendant's remaining contentions, in which he raises evidentiary challenges, are moot since we reverse the judgment on the ground the trial court committed prejudicial error in excusing the holdout juror.
1. Factual and Procedural Background
A jury convicted defendant of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211).[1] It also found true allegations defendant suffered 12 serious felony strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i) and 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)); suffered two prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)); and served two prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced defendant to 25 years to life, plus eight years in prison.
The facts of the underlying crime are not relevant to this court's determination of whether the trial court abused its discretion in discharging juror No. 10 for failing to deliberate. We therefore provide the following brief summary of the facts of the robbery offense and then discuss in detail those facts pertinent to the jury deliberation issue raised in this appeal.
Defendant's robbery conviction arises from defendant walking up to a parked car and demanding money from two women inside the car who had just made an ATM bank deposit. One of the women got out of the car and called 911. Defendant ran away, carrying the bank deposit bag and was picked up nearby by a friend driving a Corvette. The police stopped the Corvette a short distance from the bank and arrested defendant, who admitted he â€
