P. v. Singleton
Filed 5/29/13 P. v. Singleton CA2/4
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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.
HARVEY
E. SINGLETON,
Defendant and Appellant.
B240115
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BA390136)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
County, Laura F. Priver, Judge. Affirmed.
Lenore De Vita, under appointment by
the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
Harvey E. Singleton appeals from the
judgment entered following his conviction on one count of
Code section 314, subdivision 1.
name="_ftnref1" title="">[1] We affirm.
Prosecution Evidence
On September
28, 2011,
around 7:00 a.m., Nelda Lopez boarded a train at Western and Wilshire in the County of Los Angeles.
Appellant boarded the train at the same time as Lopez, smiled at her,
and sat down near her. Appellant removed
his jacket, placed it on his lap, and exposed himself in a manner that
indicated he wanted Lopez to see him.
Each time the train stopped, he would cover himself, and when the train
started again, he would remove his jacket and expose himself again. When he removed his jacket, Lopez could see
that his penis was erect, and he was holding it with his left hand.
When Lopez exited the train, she told
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Deputy Larry Ware someone was
masturbating on the train. Lopez
testified that she only saw the man’s penis out of the corner of her eye
because she was afraid to look directly at him.
Detective Kevin Acebedo interviewed
Lopez. Lopez identified appellant in a
photographic lineup and identified him in court. Detective Acebedo also interviewed appellant. The interview was recorded and played for the
jury. Detective Acebedo testified that
appellant repeatedly told him that “there was no exposure.â€
The prosecution introduced evidence of
three prior incidents involving appellant.
The first incident was on February 9, 2011.
Adriana Luna testified that she was on a train going to work when she
saw appellant move from a different train into her train. Appellant was staring at her, which made her
uncomfortable, so she looked away.
Appellant took off his jacket, put it in his lap, and began masturbating
while staring at her.
The second incident was on October
12, 2009. While Deputy Melvin Young was on duty at Harbor College, he received a call about an
indecent exposure incident. Robyn
Lamoreux testified that she was working at the Harbor College library when Melissa May told her
that a man sat next to her in the library and was masturbating. Appellant was detained, and May and Lamoreux
both identified him as the perpetrator.
Lamoreux and May identified appellant in court.
The third incident occurred on June
29, 2007. Dina Villegas testified that she was alone on
a bus in Culver City when appellant boarded the bus and sat in the seat next to
her. Appellant smiled at her several
times, and she smiled back until she noticed he was masturbating. She told the bus driver, and the police came
and arrested appellant.
Defense Evidence
Deputy Ware testified that Lopez told
him she did not see appellant’s penis, but she knew he was masturbating by the
motion of his hand. Deputy Ware was
aware that exposure of the genitals was an element of indecent exposure, so he
was careful to note this in his report.
(§ 314, subd. (1).)
Appellant was charged by information
with one count of indecent exposure.
(§ 314, subd. (1).) It was
further alleged that appellant had suffered two prior convictions under section
314, subdivision (1) for purposes of the mandatory state prison clause in
section 1170, subdivision (h)(3).
Appellant entered a not guilty plea, and a jury trial was held. He waived his
prior convictions and admitted them.
The court denied appellant’s motion to
dismiss for insufficient evidence pursuant to section 1118.1. The jury found appellant guilty. The court sentenced appellant to the midterm
of two years. Appellant filed a timely
notice of appeal. The court subsequently
granted appellant’s ex parte motion to correct his presentence credits and
prepared an amended abstract of judgment.
After review of the record,
appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed an
review the record independently pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.
On November
28, 2012, we
advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to submit any contentions or
issues that he wished us to consider.
That letter was returned. On January
2, 2013, we
sent appellant another notice that he had 30 days within which to submit any
contentions or issues. This letter was
also returned as unable to forward because appellant was paroled, and counsel
indicated she has no address for appellant.
We have examined the entire record and
are satisfied that no arguable issues exist, and that appellant has, by virtue
of counsel’s compliance with the Wende
procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective
appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith
v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)
>
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
WILLHITE,
J.
We concur:
EPSTEIN, P. J.
MANELLA, J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] All further statutory references are
to the Penal Code.
