Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. BA313200, Sam Ohta, Judge.
Linn Davis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
COOPER, P. J.
We affirm Lamar Timothy Hall’s conviction for second degree robbery. His counsel filed a brief identifying no issues and Hall filed no supplemental brief. We briefly discuss one evidentiary issue and conclude that no arguable issue exists.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Shamsul Alam testified that on November 24, 2006, he was working as a desk clerk at the Saharan Motor Hotel. A lady entered the hotel and asked him to call the police, stating that someone was chasing her. Alam looked outside the hotel and saw Hall. Alam did not immediately call 911, but later when he saw Hall and the woman fighting, he dialed 911. Alam saw Hall hit the woman and take her purse. Alam saw Hall put his hands on the victim’s purse. The victim was on the floor when Hall took the purse. Alam had identified Hall from a six-pack.
The hotel has a video surveillance and recorded the incident. The video shows a person enter the hotel wearing a shirt with the number 22. He tries to grab a woman’s purse. She struggles with him. He overpowers her and successfully obtains the purse, then exits the hotel. Alam is watching the incident from an office.
Officer Chris Craig testified that he arrested Hall and Hall was wearing a Dallas Cowboy’s shirt with the number 22.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. Pretrial
Appellant was charged with one count of second degree robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211. Six prior convictions within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5 were alleged. The case was dismissed once pursuant to Penal Code section 1387.2.
Prior to trial, the court declared a doubt as to appellant’s mental competence within the meaning of Penal Code section 1368. Following an examination, Dr. Ronald Markman found appellant competent. The court found appellant competent to stand trial.
Hall’s Marsden motion was denied. (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.) The court found that there was no evidence appellant was properly admonished pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 and excluded evidence of his statement made to police. The court also excluded evidence that the victim was a prostitute.
2. Trial
The court denied Hall’s motion for an acquittal under Penal Code section 1118.1.
The jury found Hall guilty of second degree robbery. Hall admitted two Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) priors, and the People dismissed the remaining priors. The court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Hall committed a robbery and therefore was in violation of the terms and conditions of his probation, which required him to obey all laws.
3. Posttrial
The court sentenced Hall to five years in state prison. The five-year term consisted of the midterm three-year sentence for robbery and one year for each prior. Hall timely appealed.
Hall was appointed counsel on appeal, and she filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). On June 10, 2008, we advised appellant that he had the right to submit a written argument on his behalf. Appellant did not submit a supplemental brief.
DISCUSSION
Prior to trial, the parties held a hearing pursuant to Evidence Code section 402. At that hearing, the trial court determined that the victim’s statements to Alam requesting he call the police and stating that someone was chasing her were admissible under Evidence Code section 1240 (§ 1240) as spontaneous statements. That statute provides, “Evidence of a statement is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement: [¶] (a) Purports to narrate, describe, or explain an act, condition, or event perceived by the declarant; and (b) [¶] Was made spontaneously while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by such perception.” (§ 1240.)
The court found that at the time the victim made the statement she was in fear based on Alam’s testimony at the Evidence Code section 402 hearing that the victim looked scared and was huffing and puffing. The trial court also found the statement “someone is chasing me” purports to narrate a condition that she perceived.
We agree with the trial court that the statement “someone is chasing me” narrates a condition that the victim perceived. Whether the statement “call the police” also “[p]urports to narrate, describe, or explain an act, condition, or event perceived by the declarant” is a closer question. (§ 1240.) Nevertheless, we need not decide that question because the admission of the statement “call the police” was harmless under any standard. The evidence in this case was overwhelming. Hall was caught on tape taking the victim’s purse by force and identified by Alam and by the shirt he was wearing when Officer Craig arrested him.
People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 120-121, instructs that in a proceeding where counsel has filed a Wende brief, our role is to independently review the record and our opinion must reflect any supplemental contentions and the reasons that they fail. We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issue exists. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-443.) Appellant raised no issues, and therefore no supplemental discussion is necessary.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: FLIER, J., BIGELOW, J.