P. v. Cooper
Filed 7/18/12 P. v. Cooper 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.
ERIC
LIONELL COOPER,
Defendant and Appellant.
B236498
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. SA076227)
APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court of
County, H. Chester Horn, Judge. Affirmed.
Ann
Krausz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
______________________________
Defendant Eric Lionell Cooper appeals from the
judgment entered after jury trial in which he was convicted of
with enhancements under sections 667, subds. (b)-(i) and (a)-(d) and 667, subd.
(a)(1) of that code. His appointed
counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, in which she states that she finds no
arguable issue to raise on appeal and asks that the court make an independent
review of the record to determine if there is any such issue. On March 21, 2012, we wrote to defendant inviting him
to submit by brief or letter any grounds of appeal,
court to consider. To date we have
received no response.
We have conducted an
Supreme Court’s direction in Wende. Having done so, we find no arguable issue on
appeal.
Following a felony preliminary
hearing at which defendant was ordered to answer on charges filed by the Los
Angeles District Attorney, an information was filed charging defendant with
violation of the felony and enhancements cited above. The evidence summarized below was presented
at the ensuing jury trial.
Indirah Roa Sandoval was employed as
a sales person at the Metro PCS store located in the City of Hawthorne,
California. She was at work at that
location on the morning of November 18, 2010, cleaning a glass display case. The store register had $150 and the amount of
a payment made by a customer shortly after the store opened. Not long after that, defendant and another
man entered the store. Ms. Sandoval
asked if she could help them or if they were there to pay a bill. One of the men responded, “You know why I’m
here for.†He was at her back, and she
felt the point of something at her back.
She thought it was a gun, particularly when the man said, “You know what
this is.†The man, still at her back,
pushed her so that she was in front of the counter where the cash register was
located. The other man was at the front
of the store. Ms. Sandoval opened the
register in response to a command to do so by the man at her back. The other man then took the money out of the
register. The man with the gun then led
Ms. Sandoval to the back room of the store, where he took her to the bathroom
and told her to wait ten minutes and “don’t call nobody.†She waited, because she was afraid, then made
a call. The store manager arrived, as
did police. She found her opened handbag
on the floor of the store; it had been rifled but nothing had been taken from
it. The money in the register had been
taken. Two cell phones had been taken
from the glass display case. Ms.
Sandoval was looking down during the encounter with the two men, and was not able
to identify them, other than to say they were young African-American men, about
her age (26 years old) and that one of them wore a hoodie and the other a
hat. Later, when shown photographs, Ms.
Sandoval was unable to make an identification.
While being interviewed by police Ms. Sandoval saw a gun on the
floor. It turned out to be a “BB†pellet
gun.
One of the responding police
officers, who had been trained in the lifting of fingerprints, lifted
fingerprints from the glass case.
Kimberle Swobodzinski, a trained and experienced forensic technician
with the Gardena Police Department, took fingerprints from defendant while he
was in custody and compared them with the prints lifted at the store. She compared the prints taken from defendant
with those lifted by the officer at the scene; they were from the same
person.
After being arrested and read his
rights, which he waived, defendant answered questions. He said he had never been in the store where
the robbery occurred. He denied
committing the robbery.
The final witness in the case was
Anna Alvarado, who testified that defendant, with another man, committed a
robbery at a cell phone shop where she worked in July 2006. She identified him in court as the same
person who committed that robbery, using what appeared to be a gun. Later, defendant “took responsibility†for
that crime.
Counsel stipulated that the gun used
in the 2006 robbery was a BB gun and that money was taken from a cash register
in that robbery.
Defendant’s
Code section 1118 (actually, section 1118.1 since this was a jury trial) was
denied. Outside the presence of the
jury, defendant waived his right to jury trial for the 2006 prior felony
conviction for which he served prison time.
The jury was instructed, counsel
presented argument, and the jury returned a verdict of guilty of the crime
charged.
The prosecution sought a high-term
sentence. The court, instead, imposed
the mid term, 3 years, doubled because of his prior serious felony conviction
to 6 years, plus the 5-year enhancement for the prior prison term, for a total
of 11 years. A timely notice of appeal
was filed.
The judgment of conviction is
affirmed.
EPSTEIN,
P. J.
We concur:
WILLHITE, J.
MANELLA, J.
title="">
[1]
