Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 1000116.
Richman, J.
Following a six-day jury trial, defendant Michael Robinson was convicted of two counts of armed robbery and sentenced to 12 years in state prison. Counsel appointed for defendant has asked this court to independently examine the record in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, to determine if there are any arguable issues that require briefing. Defendant was apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he did not do so. We have conducted our review, conclude there are no arguable issues, and affirm.
Background
On the evening of October 23, 2009, Leticia Sanchez and her 13-year-old daughter Miriam were at El Ranchito Market in Antioch, a market owned by their family. Leticia worked at the market, and Miriam would sometimes go there after school and help her mother. Between 8:30 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. that evening, a man entered the market and pointed a gun at Leticia and Miriam, shouting, “Put the money in the bag. I’ll shoot. I’ll shoot.” The gun had a long barrel and was a dark, metallic color (silver-gray according to Leticia, brown and black according to Miriam). The robber then began hitting the cash register with his hand, trying to open it. He could not, and Leticia opened it for him. He pulled out a plastic bag and filled it with money from register (estimated to be $2,000 to $3,000), putting his gun on the floor while he did so. At some point in the process, he dropped a number of bullets on the ground, stopping to pick them up but leaving one behind. He took some cigarettes and then ran out the door.
To avoid confusion and with no disrespect intended, we refer to Leticia and Miriam by their first names.
Both Leticia and Miriam described the robber as a tall, slim, dark-skinned African American male in his early to mid-20s. He was wearing a black, hooded, sweatshirt with the hood pulled down low to mid-forehead and a burgundy cloth over his face with holes for his mouth and eyes. He was also wearing blue boxer shorts, which Leticia and Miriam could see because his pants were low hung in the back. Both Miriam and Leticia recognized the robber as a regular customer of the store. It would develop at trial that defendant and his accomplice, Cedric West, had gone into the market minutes before the robbery to “case” the store.
On October 26, 2009, three days after the incident, Detective Santiago Castillo of the Antioch Police Department received an anonymous tip implicating defendant and West in the robbery. Based on the tip, he created two separate photo lineups, one of which contained a photograph of defendant and the other a photograph of West. Miriam identified the photograph of defendant as the robber, and Leticia indicated that the photograph of defendant looked like the robber, although she was not certain he was actually the robber. Neither one was able to identify the photograph of West. At trial, they both identified defendant as the perpetrator.
On November 10, 2009, the police simultaneously served search warrants on defendant’s and West’s homes. At West’s house, they found a “pump-action-rifle-style BB gun” in his bedroom and a leather, rifle storage case in the garage. Although the BB gun fit into the case, it was a tight fit with the zipper difficult to close, suggesting that the case did not belong to the BB gun. The bullet recovered at the market after the robbery would not fit in the BB gun because it was too big. In defendant’s bedroom, they found two black, hooded sweatshirts with front pockets.
West, who pleaded no contest to one count of second degree robbery prior to defendant’s trial, testified that on the date of the robbery, he and defendant had gone into El Ranchito Market and bought some cigars. They then left the market, and he dropped defendant off. A few minutes later, defendant called and told him to come back to the market to pick him up. When West returned to the market, defendant got in the car carrying a bag and a rifle covered in a leather coat, and told West to drive away. West helped defendant put the rifle and coat in the back seat and then drove to Pittsburg, where they ditched the rifle at a friend’s house. According to West, defendant did not tell him he had just committed a robbery, but West could tell that was the case from the rifle and the bag of money. They used some of the money for gas and drugs, and defendant purchased a car a few days later.
After West and defendant were arrested, they were placed in the same patrol car for transport. Unbeknownst to them, a recorder had been hidden in the car, and defendant and West made numerous incriminating statements on the recording. At one point, West can be heard telling defendant, “We should have did it how we planned before.” West testified at trial that he meant that they should have met at a different location like they had discussed when they previously proposed robbing the market. In another exchange, which is somewhat difficult to decipher, defendant asked West, “They ain’t found the thang?” West responded that they—the police—had only found “the toy one” in his closet, meaning that they did not find the rifle used during the robbery. Defendant also asked West, “How she knew it was me? I had on a mask?” and told West, “They said you confessed to being the get-away driver. As long as you say that ain’t me, I’m going to say that ain’t you.”
The district attorney of the County of Contra Costa charged defendant with two counts of second degree robbery by means of force and fear (Pen. Code, §§ 211/212.5, subd. (c)) and alleged as to both counts that he used a firearm in the commission of the robbery (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (b)).
Counts three and four charged West with the same crimes.
A jury trial commenced on May 25, 2010 and concluded on June 3, 2010, with the jury returning guilty verdicts on both counts and finding the firearm enhancements to be true. On July 16, 2010, defendant was sentenced to 12 years in state prison.
This timely appeal followed.
Defendant was represented by competent counsel who zealously guarded his rights and interests.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in making evidentiary rulings during trial.
The jury was properly instructed.
The jury’s verdict was supported by substantial evidence.
The sentence imposed was authorized by law.
Our independent review having found no arguable issues that require briefing, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
We concur: Kline, P.J., Haerle, J.