legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Brown

P. v. Brown
02:21:2007

P


P. v. Brown


Filed 1/19/07  P. v. Brown 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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.


ERIC LAQUINCE BROWN,


            Defendant and Appellant.



      B188112


      (Los Angeles County


      Super. Ct. No. BA285227)


            APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.  Stephen  A.  Marcus, Judge.  Affirmed.


            Darden & Associates, Inc. and Christopher Darden for Defendant and Appellant.


            Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Robert F. Katz and Roy  C.  Preminger, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


_______________


            Eric Laquince Brown appeals from a judgment entered upon his convictions by jury of two counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211,[1] counts 1 & 2) and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1), count 3).  In connection with the robbery counts, the jury also found to be true the allegation that appellant personally used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (b).  The trial court sentenced appellant to 16 years in state prison.  Appellant contends that his counsel's failure to present an expert on the weaknesses of eyewitness identifications constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel.


            We affirm.


FACTUAL BACKGROUND


The prosecution's evidence


            On November 17, 2004, at approximately 2:30 p.m., Jason Choi (Jason) and his wife Margaret Choi (Margaret) parked their car in the parking structure of the office building located at 3250 Wilshire Boulevard, in Los Angeles.  The garage was well lit.


            As the Chois exited the vehicle, appellant came up beside Margaret and pulled her gold necklace with an elephant pendant from her neck.  She screamed.  Appellant then went to Jason and placed a gun against his right temple, lifted his sleeve and said he would kill him if he did not give appellant his wristwatch.  Jason tried to unclasp his watch.  When he had difficulty doing so, appellant kicked and hit him, causing Jason to fall.  Appellant dragged him by his wrist 14 or 15 feet to a door, trying to remove the watch.  Margaret approached her husband to help him, and appellant warned, â€





Description Defendant appeals from a judgment entered upon his convictions by jury of two counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, S 211, counts 1 & 2) and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm (S 12021, subd. (a)(1), count 3). In connection with the robbery counts, the jury also found to be true the allegation that appellant personally used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (b). The trial court sentenced appellant to 16 years in state prison. Appellant contends that his counsel's failure to present an expert on the weaknesses of eyewitness identifications constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. Court affirm.

Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale