P. v. Hill
Filed 9/3/13
P. v. Hill CA2/4
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts
and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or
ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
FOUR
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
OMARI HILL,
Defendant and Appellant.
B241926
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. PA072295)
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court
of
County, Beverly Reid O’Connell, Judge. Affirmed.
Lea
Rappaport Geller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No
appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
Omari
Hill appeals from his conviction of two counts of
grand theft person. Our independent
review of the record reveals no arguable issue that would aid him. We affirm the judgment of conviction.
FACTUAL AND
PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
On December 27, 2011, Rosemary
Hernandez was returning to work at a Catholic church after having lunch. Her friend, Anna Ibarra, was with her. As they approached the gate to the church
office, they saw a man leaning against the fence, partially blocking the
entrance. He was Black, and was holding
a cell phone to his face. He had a bag
on his back. He was wearing blue pajama
bottoms with white designs on them. Ms.
Ibarra identified the man as appellant, but Ms. Hernandez was unable to do
so. He took the purse Ms. Hernandez was
holding. He walked quickly away as he
opened the purse and looked through the contents. Ms. Hernandez did not give appellant
permission to take her purse. She
attempted to pursue him, but lost sight of him when he went around a corner
onto another street.
Police
officers responded to the report of the robbery. Based on a conversation with a person from
the school across the street, Ms. Hernandez told the police to look for her
purse there. The officers recovered her
wallet from a trash can behind the school, and a small backpack. Everything was still in the wallet. Ms. Hernandez and Ms. Ibarra testified that
the pajama bottoms appellant was wearing at the time of his arrest appeared to
be the same as those worn by the robber.
The same
day, Maria Delgadillo was going to visit her daughter at her condominium
building. She held her white purse and a
bag with presents for her grandchildren.
She was about to go upstairs when she saw appellant coming down the
stairs. She moved to one side, holding
her purse. As appellant passed, he
grabbed her purse from her hand and took it away by force. She identified appellant as the person who
robbed her. She did not give him permission to take her purse. As appellant was running away, Ms. Delgadillo
attempted to follow him. He pulled out a
brush from his pocket and threw it at her very hard. She stopped following him because she was
afraid. Police officers recovered
jewelry belonging to Ms. Delgadillo from the house in which appellant was
arrested later the same day. She came to
the scene of appellant’s arrest and identified jewelry as hers.
Later on December 27, 2011, Jeremiah James
was walking home from a store. He was
smoking a cigarette and holding his cell phone in his other hand. He was approached by a man he identified as
appellant. Appellant talked to him about
his cell phone and asked for a cigarette.
Mr. James took out his pack of cigarettes and put it in his left hand,
in which he also held his cell phone.
Appellant took the cigarette and snatched the phone out of Mr. James’
hand. Mr. James did not intend to give
appellant his phone. When he exclaimed,
appellant put his hand to the small of his back under his shirt and said “‘Do
something and I will blast you.’†Mr.
James stepped back, believing that appellant was armed and probably was going
to shoot him. He tried to talk appellant
into giving back the phone. Appellant
refused, and ran away. With Mr. James in
pursuit, appellant got onto a bicycle and rode away. Mr. James identified the pajama pants
appellant wore at the time of his arrest as the pajamas he wore at the time of
the robbery. Later that night, police
officers took Mr. James to the scene of appellant’s arrest and conducted a
field identification. Mr. James
identified appellant as the robber. He
identified his stolen phone as among those seized from the location where
appellant was arrested.
Appellant
was arrested and charged with grand theft person for taking
Ms. Hernandez’s purse (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c)) and second degree
robbery of Ms. Delgadillo and Mr. James (Pen. Code, § 211). The information alleged that he had suffered
prior convictions for violations of Health and Safety Code section 11350 and Penal
Code section 211, within the meaning of Penal Code sections 667, subdivision
(a)(1), 667.5, subdivision (b), 1170, subdivision (h)(3), and 1170.12,
subdivisions (a) through (d) and section 667, subdivisions (b) through (i). Appellant did not put on a defense. The jury found him guilty as charged. He waived jury trial and admitted both prior
convictions. The trial court denied
appellant’s motion to dismiss his prior strike conviction under
497.
Appellant
was sentenced to the low term of two years for the robbery of
Ms. Delgadillo as the base term, doubled to four years in light of the
prior Three Strike conviction. On the
robbery of Mr. James, appellant was sentenced to one-third the midterm doubled,
for two years, to run consecutive to the base term. On the theft charge against Ms. Hernandez,
the court imposed one-third the midterm, doubled, for a term of 16 months, to
run consecutive to the base term. A
five-year term for the prior was imposed under Penal Code section 667,
subdivision (a). The court exercised its
discretion to strike the other prior under Penal Code section 667.5,
subdivision (b). The aggregate prison
term was 12 years, four months. On each
count, the court imposed a restitution fine of $200, a parole revocation fee of
$240, suspended, a $40 court security fee, and a $30 criminal conviction
fee. Appellant was ordered to provide
DNA samples and exemplars under Penal Code section 296. Appellant filed a timely appeal.
DISCUSSION
We appointed
counsel to represent appellant on
appeal. Appointed counsel filed an
appellate brief raising no issues, but asking this court to independently
review the record on appeal pursuant to People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441–442.
We advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to submit by brief
or letter any contentions or arguments he wished this court to consider. No response has been received.
We have
independently reviewed the record in accordance with People v. Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d at pages 441–442, and find no arguable issues that could aid
appellant.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
EPSTEIN,
P. J.
We concur:
MANELLA,
J.
SUZUKAWA,
J.
