P. v. Muldrow

Filed 4/21/06 P. v. Muldrow CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

Defendant Sean Muldrow appeals from a conviction for robbery and child endangerment. He asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial, that he should have been assigned independent counsel to argue that motion, and that he was prejudiced by being forced to testify that he believed a police officer had lied in testifying against him. We affirm.

Background

Brenda Paredes testified that on June 19, 2004, at approximately 7:35 p.m., she was shopping with her four-year-old and six and a half months old daughters. She was standing in front of a clothing store holding her baby when a man approached her from behind and put his arms around her. Paredes believed he was trying to take either her wallet or her baby. She crossed her arms in front of her and struggled with him. After a few seconds, the man took her wallet and ran away with it. Paredes yelled for help and her older daughter ran between some parked cars. Another man and a security guard stopped the man who had the wallet when he was approximately 19 feet from Paredes. He was still holding her wallet and threw it back towards Paredes. Paredes could not identify the man who assaulted her because he had held her from behind, but testified that the man she saw running from her was the same man who was stopped with her wallet.

The security guard who stopped Muldrow testified that he saw him struggling with Paredes. He â€