P. v. Nicholas CA3
abundy's Membership Status
Usergroup: Administrator
Listings Submitted: 0 listings
Total Comments: 0 (0 per day)
Last seen: 06:01:2017 - 11:31:27
Biographical Information
Contact Information
Submission History
In re K.P. CA6
P. v. Price CA6
P. v. Alvarez CA6
P. v. Shaw CA6
Marriage of Lejerskar CA4/3
Find all listings submitted by abundy
By nbuttres
02:14:2018
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ALVIN NICHOLAS,
Defendant and Appellant.
C084997
(Super. Ct. No. 15F06011)
Appointed counsel for defendant Alvin Nicholas filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) After reviewing the entire record, we affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the factual and procedural background of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On October 1, 2015, Khalid Saddique was working alone as the cashier in his family’s Valero gas station location at the intersection of Northgate Boulevard and West El Camino Avenue in Sacramento. Around 4:00 p.m., a tall, skinny, older man walked into the station and told Saddique to come over. The man wore black sweat pants, a long, white T-shirt, and had long hair in dreadlocks. He had a Halloween mask on top of his head. Thinking he needed assistance, Saddique came over and asked the man if he could help him. The man put on the mask, showed a black gun, and told Saddique to empty the cash register. A scared Saddique handed over all of the money in the register, about $200. The man told Saddique to go to the back room, and then left.
Saddique called the police after the man left. He locked the front door, then got into his car and followed the robber while staying on the phone with the police. He saw the man standing outside a store down the street on West El Camino, but lost sight of him when Saddique parked his car.
Officer Jason Meier of the Sacramento Police Department was on duty that day when around 4:30 p.m. he saw a man running eastbound on the same side of West El Camino as the Valero station. The man held something on his head, and wore a white shirt and black pants. He passed Officer Meier, and, about 20 seconds later, the officer received a dispatch notice about a robbery at the Valero station on West El Camino by a man fitting the same description. He returned to the area and found the man—defendant—who was sitting in a sedan parked at the intersection of West El Camino and American Avenue.
Officer Meier put his patrol car nose-to-nose in front of the sedan; defendant put his car into reverse and drove against the flow of traffic onto American Avenue. The officer activated his siren and pursued. During the pursuit, defendant drove through a red light, went into the center median several times, drove by a school at 60 miles per hour, turned into a residential area where he ran two stop signs, and passed a school bus. Defendant tossed items out of his car as he left the residential area. He failed to yield for a pedestrian in a crosswalk. As the pursuit progressed, defendant continued to drive against traffic and run stop signs.
By the end of the pursuit, four patrol units and an air unit were involved. Defendant finally stopped on Garden Highway, approximately 28.4 miles from the beginning of the chase. Defendant was arrested and taken to the Valero station, where Saddique identified him as the robber. A search of defendant found $166 in cash. A Halloween mask and a magazine for an air soft gun were in the front seat of his car. Two black wallets, one with defendant’s identification, were found in the area where defendant threw items out of his car.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), felony evading an officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)), and evading an officer while driving on the wrong side of the road (Veh. Code, § 2800.4). The trial court sustained a strike and a serious felony allegation, imposed a 12-year four-month state prison term, ordered various fines and fees, and awarded 725 days of presentence credit (630 actual and 95 conduct). Defendant appeals.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.)
Defendant filed a supplemental brief (Oct. 13, 2017) in which he asserts trial counsel was ineffective due to deficiencies in pretrial investigation, in failing to impeach a witness with an arrest record, by conducting insufficient cross-examination regarding the field identification, in failing to point out the lack of reference to dreadlocks in the 911 call, store surveillance video, or the police report, and by being ignorant of the facts of the case.
The alleged deficiencies in pretrial investigation, counsel’s alleged lack of understanding regarding the facts of the case, and the claim regarding a witness’s alleged arrest record rely on facts not in the record of appeal, and therefore must be resolved through a petition for habeas corpus rather than in this appeal. (People v. Wilson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 926, 936.) Trial counsel cross-examined both Saddique and the officer who conducted the field identification on this matter. Courts addressing ineffective assistance of counsel claims rarely second-guess trial counsel’s cross-examination tactics. (People v. Ervin (2000) 22 Cal.4th 48, 94.) Neither defendant nor our review of the record has given us any reason to do so here. The claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
BUTZ , J.
We concur:
NICHOLSON , Acting P. J.
MURRAY , J.
Description | Appointed counsel for defendant Alvin Nicholas filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) After reviewing the entire record, we affirm the judgment. |
Rating | |
Views | 6 views. Averaging 6 views per day. |