Opinion
E052565
10-04-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SAVION JAMES HUGHES, Defendant and Appellant.
Mara I. Stanton, under appointment for the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for public
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Super.Ct.No. RIF151585)
OPINION
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge. Affirmed.
Mara I. Stanton, under appointment for the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant, Savion James Hughes, appeals from his conviction and prison sentence of six years and eight months. These resulted from three separate store robberies and a police vehicle pursuit. As discussed below, we conclude that sufficient evidence supports
I
the Vehicle Code conviction and the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it sentenced Hughes to prison for the middle term.
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
On June 28, 2009, at about 10:00 a.m., Hughes and an accomplice entered a convenience store in Corona. As the clerk opened the cash register to take Hughes's money for a purchase, Hughes pointed a toy handgun at the clerk, jumped over the counter and began removing cash from the register. Hughes told the clerk to open the second register, which she did. Hughes removed cash from that register as well. Hughes and his accomplice fled the store with about $350.
On July 15, 2009, at about 2:46 p.m., Hughes and the same accomplice robbed the same convenience store. Hughes took money from both registers after pointing a toy handgun at the clerk and jumping over the counter, in the same manner as the first robbery.
On July 21, 2009, at about 1:00 p.m., Hughes and the same accomplice robbed a paycheck advance store directly next door to the convenience store they had previously robbed twice. Hughes's accomplice entered the store and spoke with the clerk about how to open an account. After Hughes entered the store, the accomplice produced a real semiautomatic handgun and demanded money. The clerk removed the money from the cash register and put it in a bag that Hughes was holding. Hughes then demanded the rest of the money in the store. The clerk went to the rear of the store to the safe, followed by Hughes and the accomplice, who was still holding the handgun. The clerk placed the rest of the money from the safe into Hughes's bag, after which Hughes and the accomplice left through a rear door. The money included a "bait pack," consisting of two $20 bills with 60 $1 bills in between. Each of the bills had been photocopied so that the money in the bait pack could be traced. A witness provided a description of the getaway vehicle— a black 2008 GMC Yukon—along with a partial license plate number.
The following day, on July 22, 2009, detectives saw Hughes driving the black GMC Yukon in another area near Corona. At the request of the detectives, a police officer in a marked vehicle attempted to make a traffic stop by activating the car's siren and lights. Hughes failed to stop and instead drove at high speed through several stop signs. Hughes entered the driveway of a high school at a high rate of speed, causing people to scatter to avoid being run down. Hughes stopped the vehicle in the school parking lot and ran away on foot, scaling several chain link fences before surrendering at gunpoint. A roll of money recovered from Hughes' sock matched the photocopies in the bait pack.
The People charged Hughes with three counts of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), three counts of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) and one count of eluding a pursuing officer's motor vehicle with reckless disregard for the safety of others (Veh. Code, § 2800.2). The People further alleged as to the June 28 robbery and the June 28 burglary that Hughes personally used a firearm (Pen. Code, §§ 12022.53, subd. (b), and 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)). The People further alleged as to the July 15 robbery and the July 15 burglary that Hughes had participated as a principal knowing that his accomplice was armed with a semiautomatic handgun (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (a)(1). The People further alleged as to the July 21 robbery and the July 21 burglary that Hughes had participated as a principal knowing that his accomplice was armed with a .357-caliber handgun (Pen. Code, §12022, subd. (a)(1).
After a jury trial, on October 6, 2010, the jury found Hughes guilty on all counts, found true the gun allegations (accomplice armed with a firearm) as to the July 21 robbery and burglary, and found not true the gun allegations (accomplice armed with a firearm) as to the July 15 robbery and burglary and the gun allegations (personal use) as to the June 28 robbery and burglary.
The sentencing hearing was held on November 4, 2010. The trial court acknowledged, contrary to the conclusion of the probation report, that Hughes was not statutorily ineligible for parole because the jury had found not true the personal gun use allegation as to the June 28 robbery and burglary. However, the court did not believe that unusual circumstances were present to justify placing Hughes on probation rather than sentencing him to prison. Although Hughes was young, these were his first offenses, and he had significant support in the community, along with glowing letters from friends and family as to his usual character, the trial court concluded that Hughes should serve time in prison because the robberies happened on three separate occasions with room in between for reflection, he was an active participant in each crime, the crimes demonstrated criminal sophistication, and the final robbery involved his accomplice pointing a real gun at the victim. For these reasons, the court sentenced Hughes to the midterm of three years on the robbery count for the July 21 robbery, plus one year for the armed accomplice allegation as to that robbery, plus one year (one-third the middle term) on the July 15 robbery, one year (one-third the middle term) on the June 28 robbery, plus
8 months on the evading a police officer count, for a total of six years and eight months. The two-year sentences for the three burglaries were stayed pursuant to section 654, as was the one-year term for the armed accomplice enhancement for the July 21 burglary. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
After Hughes appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered Hughes an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has done so. Hughes briefly states that the conviction for the Vehicle Code violation was supported only by the testimony of the police officer who chased him in the marked police car, implying that this testimony is somehow insufficient. Not so—the testimony of a single witness is sufficient for proof of any fact. (People v. Richardson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 959, 1030.) Hughes further states that he would have received a grant of probation had the probation report not incorrectly stated that he was found to have personally used a firearm. As discussed above, the trial court noted this error in the probation report and concluded that Hughes was not statutorily ineligible for probation. Finally, Hughes argues the trial court abused its discretion in not choosing to grant him probation because he had no prior criminal record, a business of his own, and a strong support system. The record shows that the trial court did consider these factors on the positive side, but found them outweighed by the three separate crimes that Hughes chose to commit, the last one while his accomplice was armed with a real gun. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 120-121, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P.J.
We concur:
HOLLENHORST
J.
RICHLI
J.