Opinion
D073209
08-15-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RANDALL J. GOODLETT, Defendant and Appellant.
Benjamin B. Kington, under appointment by 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. SCN343968) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Harry M. Elias, Judge. Affirmed. Benjamin B. Kington, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I.
INTRODUCTION
A jury found defendant Randall J. Goodlett guilty of second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.) The trial court sentenced Goodlett to state prison for a determinate term of nine years.
In People v. Goodlett (July 18, 2017, D069892) (Goodlett I), this court conditionally reversed Goodlett's conviction on the ground that the trial court erred in failing to rule on Goodlett's motion for a mistrial.
On May 3, 2018, this court took judicial notice of its prior nonpublished opinion in Goodlett I. --------
On remand, the trial court heard Goodlett's motion for mistrial and denied it. The court re-imposed its original sentence.
Goodlett appeals from the judgment after remand. His appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) raising no specific issues. Goodlett's appellate counsel asks this court to review the record independently for error as required by Wende. We granted Goodlett the opportunity to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf, but he has not done so. We have independently reviewed the record under Wende and have found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. We therefore affirm.
II.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The facts underlying Goodlett's conviction are set forth in this court's prior opinion in Goodlett I. In summary, Goodlett stole some merchandise from a store and walked out the door. Goodlett did not use force in taking the merchandise. (Goodlett I, supra, at p. 2.) A store employee followed Goodlett out of the store, and Goodlett and the employee began swearing at each other. (Id. at p. 3.) Goodlett eventually struck the employee, and a physical altercation ensued between the men. (Id. at p. 4.)
The issue at trial was whether Goodlett used force with the intent to retain the property, as required to convict him of robbery, or whether the confrontation was about " 'respect,' " independent of the theft, as defense counsel argued. (Goodlett I, supra, at p. 3.) In rebuttal, the prosecutor argued that defense counsel "couldn't stomach" her own arguments. The prosecutor further argued that the jury was the "conscience of our community" and that if the jurors acquitted Goodlett of robbery, that would amount to a declaration that "we don't chase thieves . . . . [¶] God forbid the next time that someone goes into a store, takes some property. Because the minute you step out of that threshold, according to [defense counsel], they've gone to[o] far." (Id. at pp. 6-7.)
After a recess and while the jury was deliberating, defense counsel moved for a mistrial on the ground that the prosecutor had engaged in misconduct in making these arguments. The trial court declined to rule on the motion because Goodlett had not personally consented to his attorney's request for a mistrial. (Goodlett I, supra, at p. 8.) On appeal, this court determined that the trial court erred in failing to rule on the motion for mistrial, and remanded the matter for the trial court to rule on the motion. (Id. at p. 13.)
On remand, after obtaining additional briefing from the parties and hearing argument, the trial court denied the defense's motion for mistrial. In ruling on the motion, the trial court stated:
"Is there misconduct? My analysis of that is yes. I'm focusing mostly on the first statement. And I think I'm still hearing you and [the prosecutor] saying you think it's appropriate to say the attorney can't stomach the argument that's misconduct. You can say the argument doesn't make sense. It's not logical. Here's why based on the facts it's not logical. When you make a reference to the lawyer that is from my perspective misconduct.
"Then go to the third one. The [']God forbid['] actually in all candor doesn't bother me. When you read the whole thing it's not a true reference to a deity. It's a statement. God forbid this happened. So to me it's a colloquial expression. So I don't find that statement is misconduct.
"The other one is really more of a more confined analysis that is, it's also on the first page, is that really what you feel is reasonable as the [conscience] of the community . . . that is somehow not allowed that Mr. Sorria, who is the representative from the store, crossed some line trying to get his property back trying to do his job. Well, [conscience] of the community is sort of -- it's a slippery slope kind of issue. Oftentimes jurors are asked and pointed out that by serving as fact finders they do serve as whether it's the [conscience] of the community or the reference of the community. The question is, is it so great as to cause them to not follow along that goes to truly the third analysis. Those were pointed out as whether or not the misconduct that occurs is such that it would cause the jury not to follow the law and therefore rely either on emotion or those statements and therefore would be prejudicial to the defendant. That's where I think actually the most important analysis of taking everything in context, so in this case reading [defense counsel's] argument the beginning to the very end and therein while those statements occur there is a constant reference back as I read it to particular facts that occurred. This is in fact a classic Estes robbery
in the sense that no force was used whatsoever in the taking of the property[,] the asportation from the store beyond the store property.
"I don't disagree with [defense counsel's] analysis that Mr. Goodlett sort of went out of his way initially [not] to have any contact with store employees. Of course, if you 're going to steal stuff why would you want to bring attention to store employees. However, a store employee whether it's a regular employee, whether it's loss prevention they have a right under the law once they realize their property has been taken to try to recover that and can use reasonable force in an effort to retain their own property.
"From my perspective that's clearly what Mr. Sorria did in his pursuit of Mr. Goodlett out of the store out of the mall into the parking lot.
"Now, I don't disagree that at some point whether you want to call it testosterone, whether you want to call it ego that enveloped. That doesn't deprive Mr. Sorria from the right to try to use reasonable force to obtain his property back and then the force used to prevent that from occurring.
"If you read the thrust, as I read it, [of defense counsel's] argument that's what he's talking about. Perhaps emotion took over at times.
"However, when I read it what I would describe as the black and white which is what I think the jury ends up doing once they -- you guys leave them or actually they leave you by going back into the jury deliberation room look at the exhibits, read the instructions, they would do the same.
"So while I agree there's misconduct here I don't believe it was so prejudicial that would cause the jury to abandon their obligation to follow the law and decide this case based either on emotion. Therefore, I find there's not sufficient prejudice. The motion for the mistrial would be denied, and the sentence previously imposed is reinstated."
Goodlett filed a timely notice of appeal after the court entered judgment.
III.
DISCUSSION
As noted, Goodlett's appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende and Anders and has raised no specific issues on appeal. Instead, counsel identified one possible, but not arguable, issue pursuant to Anders: "Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying the motion for a mistrial?"
After this court received counsel's brief, we provided Goodlett with the opportunity to file a supplemental brief. Goodlett has not responded.
We have independently reviewed the record under Wende and have considered the possible issue identified by Goodlett's counsel. We have found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal. Competent counsel has represented Goodlett in this appeal.
IV.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
AARON, J. WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J. BENKE, J.