P. v. Wysinger
Filed 2/6/07 P. v. Wysinger CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AARON WYSINGER, JR., Defendant and Appellant. | A110927 (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. CH36970) |
Defendant Aaron Wysinger, Jr. was tried with codefendant Kenneth Webb on two counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). The jury convicted defendant on both counts, but was unable to reach a verdict as to Webb. The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for a term of four years, and defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. His sole contention is that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed judgment of acquittal because one of the victims had made a tainted in-court identification. We conclude that this contention is without merit, and we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Saboor Khan (Saboor) owns a pizza shop in San Leandro, and on June 21, 2004, was training his brother Hasseb Khan (Hasseb) to operate the business. At about 2 p.m. on that day, the Khans were checking the tills for that day's business. The till in each of the shop's two registers would have approximately $130, mostly one- and five-dollar bills; there was also about $100 from sales so far that day. No one else was in the shop. A man Saboor identified in court as defendant entered the shop with another man. The other man was carrying a gun, and was wearing black running pants and a black jacket; a piece of shiny black cloth covered his face below the eyes. The other man came behind the counter at the front of the shop, while defendant remained on the other side of the counter, where customers would normally be served.[1] Saboor testified in effect that all he could see of defendant's clothing was that he was wearing a black T-shirt which had â€
