Opinion
B230951
12-13-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAMON LEON, Defendant and Appellant.
Brandie Devall, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA084952)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Charles Sheldon, Judge. Affirmed.
Brandie Devall, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.
Following a jury trial, appellant was convicted of second degree robbery (Pen Code, § 211) and the jury found he used a handgun in the commission of the offense (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). He was sentenced to 13 years in state prison. Appellant filed a notice of appeal and counsel was appointed to represent appellant on appeal.
All future statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 indicating he had reviewed the record and found no appealable issues. Appellant was advised he may file a supplemental brief within 30 days.
Appellant timely filed a letter which we deem to be a supplemental brief. We construe his supplemental brief as raising the following contentions: (1) the evidence supporting the robbery charge and the enhancement was insufficient; (2) the enhancement should be stricken because it was not found to be true by a trier of fact as required by section 1170.1, subdivision (e); and (3) the prosecutor was not required to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. His claims are rejected.
Appellant met the victim in a McDonald's parking lot for the purpose of selling gold jewelry to her. Appellant sold the victim jewelry and, after she left, appellant telephoned the victim and asked her to return to the parking lot because he had additional jewelry to sell. The victim returned to the parking lot. Appellant entered the victim's vehicle and sat in the passenger seat. Appellant pointed a gun at the victim and took her cellular telephone. He demanded money and the gold he had previously sold to her. The victim provided appellant with money. Appellant turned off the ignition to the car, causing the doors to unlock and allowing the victim to escape. Appellant's fingerprints were found on a water bottle in the car.
The testimony of a single witness is sufficient to support a conviction unless it is "physically impossible or inherently improbable." (People v. Scott (1978) 21 Cal.3d 284, 296.) An appellate court does "not reweigh the evidence, resolve conflicts in the evidence, or reevaluate the credibility of witnesses. [Citations.]" (People v. Riazati (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 514, 532.) The jury believed the victim's testimony appellant took her property and that he used a gun in the process of doing so. There was nothing physically impossible or inherently improbable about the testimony. Appellant's fingerprints from the water bottle in the car corroborated he was in the vehicle. There was sufficient evidence supporting the jury's verdict.
Section 1170.1, subdivision (e) requires all enhancements to be alleged in the accusatory pleading and to be either admitted by the defendant or found true by the trier of fact. The finding regarding the enhancement did not run afoul of section 1170.1, subdivision (e) because it was found true by the trier of fact, i.e., the jury.
The jury was instructed that the prosecutor was required to prove the elements of the offense and the enhancement beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, appellant's concern that the prosecutor was not required to do so lacks merit.
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
We concur:
TURNER, P. J.
KRIEGLER, J.