P. v. Beal





















Filed 1/28/13 P. v. Beal CA2/4











NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.







IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA



SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT



DIVISION FOUR












>

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BOBBIE BEAL, Defendant and Appellant.

B242613 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA373655)

APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Los Angeles
County, Norm Shapiro, Judge.
Affirmed.

Alex
Green, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, and Bobbie Beal, in
pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.

No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

>

Defendant
Bobbie Beal was convicted of possessing
hydrocodone for the purpose of sale. (Health & Safety Code, § 11351.) He appealed, contending that the trial court
erred in denying his challenge pursuant to Batson
v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79 and People
v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258 by refusing to consider whether two jurors
had been excused on the basis of their race on the grounds that the challenge
was untimely. We agreed and remanded the
matter for the trial court to evaluate the prosecutor’s reasons for challenging
the two jurors and determine whether the prosecutor exercised her peremptory
challenges in a permissible fashion. (>People v. Beal (Feb. 24, 2012, B231175) [nonpub. opn.].) After conducting a hearing, the trial court
found that the challenges were race-neutral and reinstated the judgment. Defendant appeals and we affirm.



>DISCUSSIONhref="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]



After reviewing
the record, defendant’s appointed counsel filed an href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">opening brief and requested that this
court independently review the record for appellate issues pursuant to >People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436. Counsel filed a declaration stating
that he had advised defendant of the nature of the brief. Counsel and this court informed defendant
that he had 30 days within which to submit any issues that he wished this court
to consider. Defendant filed a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">supplemental brief.

We
have reviewed the transcript of the hearing on defendant’s Batson/Wheeler motion. The
prosecutor told the court that she challenged one of the jurors because he had
previously been a juror in an attempted murder trial and the jury was unable to
reach a verdict. In addition, the juror
had been convicted of a misdemeanor and had another experience where police
officers were not truthful when citing him for a traffic violation. The prosecutor pointed out that her case
relied entirely on the testimony of officers and stated she did not want that
juror judging the case. As to the other
excused juror, the prosecutor noted that the juror described three separate
incidents where he believed the police had lied. She did not want a juror who thought police
officers were not credible. The trial
court concluded the challenges were race-neutral and the record supports that
finding.

In
his supplemental brief, defendant
contends the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction. Any evidence regarding the sufficiency of the
evidence should have been presented in the initial appeal. The matter was remanded for the sole purpose
of resolving issues pertaining to jury selection. (See People
v. Senior (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 531, 534.)
In any event, defendant’s claim is without merit. As we understand his argument, the jury’s
inability to reach a verdict on one of the charged counts demonstrates that the
evidence was insufficient to support its verdict on the other. The count upon which the jury could not agree
charged defendant with the sale of hydrocodone.
The jury’s failure to reach a verdict on that count has no bearing on
whether defendant possessed the same drug with the intent to sell it.

We
are satisfied that no other arguable issues exist and that defendant has received
effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him. (Smith
v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S.
259, 277-279; People v. Kelly (2006)
40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124.)



>DISPOSITION



The
judgment is affirmed.



NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS





SUZUKAWA,
J.



We concur:





WILLHITE,
Acting P. J. MANELLA,
J.