P. v. Daniels
Filed 9/19/06 P. v. Daniels CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRITTANY DANIELS, Defendant and Appellant. | B185158 (Super. Ct. No. BA274819) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Ruffo Espinosa, Judge. Affirmed as modified.
Ronald White for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Jaime L. Fuster and Viet H. Nguyen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
__________________________________________
Brittany Daniels appeals from a judgment entered after a jury found her guilty of three counts of robbery and found firearm enhancement allegations to be true. Daniels contends her due process rights were violated because eyewitness identifications made at trial were tainted by an impermissibly suggestive field show-up. She also contends there was insufficient evidence identifying her as one of the persons who robbed the victims. We reject each of her contentions.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW
I. THE CHARGES
An information charged Brittany Daniels with three counts of second degree robbery.[1] As to all three counts, the information alleged Daniels personally used a handgun[2] and a principal was armed with a handgun[3] during commission of the offense.
II. EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TRIAL
At about 8:00 p.m. on November 22, 2004, Carlos Archila, Cesar Portillo and Jose Prado (the victims)[4] arrived at a park where they planned to play basketball. As Cesar exited his car, he saw a group of people gathered by some benches about 100 to 125 feet away. The three young men started to walk to the public restroom. Because the area near the restroom was so dark, Jose decided he would relieve himself outside near some trees. The only light in this area came from a fluorescent overhead lamp more than 40 feet away.
Two African American people who were part of the group gathered by the benches approached Carlos, Cesar and Jose. The victims described these two people as a tall man wearing a blue jacket with a Clippers basketball team logo on it and a shorter man wearing a black hooded sweatshirt. The hood of the black sweatshirt was on the shorter person's head, but the victims could still see this person's face and about eight or nine thick hair braids coming out of the hood. At trial, Carlos, Cesar and Jose would identify the person in the black hooded sweatshirt as defendant Brittany Daniels. During the commission of the offenses, however, the victims believed Daniels was a man.
Daniels inquired whether the victims belonged to a street gang, asking â€
