Filed 11/28/05 P. v. Robbins 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. FRANCIS ROBBINS et al., Defendants and Appellants.

B176019 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LA038199)

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

Jill Lansing, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Francis Robbins.

Gregory L. Cannon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Serean Robbins.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr., Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________

Francis Robbins (Francis) and Serean Robbins (Serean) appeal from the judgments entered upon their convictions by jury of willful, deliberate and premeditated attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, subd. (a), 187, subd. (a)).[1] The jury also found to be true the allegations that (1) appellants personally used a firearm in the commission of the offense within the meaning of sections 12022.53, subdivisions (b), (c) and (d) and 12022.5, subdivision (a)(1),[2] (2) a principal in the commission of the offense used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivisions (b), (c), (d) and (e)(1), and (3) the offense was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang, with the specific intent to promote, further or assist in criminal conduct by gang members, pursuant to section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1). The trial court sentenced each appellant on the attempted murder conviction with the criminal street gang allegation to an indeterminate term of 15 years to life, plus a consecutive indeterminate sentence of 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement.

Appellants contend that (1) their convictions must be reversed as a result of the trial court's failure to suppress impermissibly suggestive pretrial and in-court eyewitness identifications. Serean also contends that his conviction must be reversed because (2) the trial court erred in refusing to admit a credit card receipt corroborating his alibi, thereby depriving him of his constitutional right to present a defense, (3) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury sua sponte on the principles of self-defense and defense of others, (4) the trial court deprived him of his rights to due process and to a fair trial by failing to instruct the jury sua sponte in accordance with CALJIC No. 2.01, and (5) the cumulative effect of the trial court's errors mandates reversal. Francis contends that (6) he was deprived of his right to confront witnesses against him, as articulated in Aranda/Bruton[3] and Crawford,[4] due to the admission of Serean's incriminating out-of-court statement to police, and (7) he suffered ineffective assistance of counsel.

We affirm.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On April 8, 2001, at approximately 4:00 pm., Cesar Rodas and Alejandro Verduzco were standing on the street in the area of 6650 Bakman Avenue. Rodas was a member of the â€