P. v. Brown
Filed 4/25/13 P. v. Brown CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
CHRISTOPHER LEE
BROWN,
Defendant and Appellant.
E056509
(Super.Ct.No. SWF1102357)
OPINION
APPEAL
from the Superior Court of
County. Patrick F.
Magers, Judge. (Retired judge of
the Riverside Super. Ct. assigned
by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal.
Const.) Affirmed.
Mark
D. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
On December 16, 2011, an information charged
defendant and appellant Christopher Lee Brown with
The information also alleged that defendant had served three prior
prison terms under section 667.5, subdivision (b). Moreover, the information alleged that
defendant previously had been convicted of a serious or violent felony, which
constituted a strike prior under section 667, subdivisions (c) and (e)(1), and
section 1170.12, subdivision (c)(1). The
information further alleged that defendant had a prior conviction for a serious
felony under section 667, subdivision (a).
The information was subsequently amended to allege that defendant had a
second strike prior.
On March 12, 2012, jury trial commenced. Three days later, the jury found defendant
guilty of robbery in violation of section 211.
trial on the prior convictions. The
trial court dismissed two of the prior prison terms alleged under section
667.5, subdivision (b), on the prosecutor’s motion. The trial court then found that defendant had
served the remaining prior prison term under section 667.5, subdivision (b). The court also found true one of the two
strike priors alleged under section 667, subdivisions (c) and (e)(1), and
section 1170.12, subdivision (c)(1). The
court further found that defendant had suffered a prior serious felony under
section 667, subdivision (a).
On
April 20, 2012, defendant filed a motion
for a new trial on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct; and a motion to
strike the remaining strike prior under People
v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. The trial court denied both motions.
On June 6, 2012, the trial court sentenced defendant to 11 years in
state prison, as follows: Midterm of
three years for the section 211 violation, doubled to six years because of the
strike prior, plus a consecutive term of five years for the prior serious
felony under section 667, subdivision (a).
The court also imposed but stayed an additional one year for the prior
prison term under section 667.5, subdivision (b).
credits of 263 actual days and 39 days under section 2933.1. The court also imposed fines and fees as
required under the law.
On June 19, 2012, defendant filed a timely
On September 19, 2011, at approximately 2:00 p.m., the victim was eating
lunch in a park in Temecula, California. An African-American male pulled into the
adjacent parking lot, walked by where the victim was sitting, and asked her for
directions. After the man talked to the
victim for approximately 10 minutes, he grabbed her purse, which was lying on
the ground next to her. The victim also
grabbed her purse and struggled with the man.
The man, however, ultimately took the purse, got in his car, and drove
away. During the struggle, both of the
victim’s hands were scraped by the zippers on her purse.
As
the man drove away, the victim read and memorized the license plate number on
his car, which she later provided to law enforcement. Law enforcement determined that the vehicle
belonged to defendant’s brother; defendant lived with his brother. Defendant’s brother told the officers that
defendant often used his car and was using it on September
19, 2011.
Law
enforcement provided the license number of the vehicle to security personnel at
Pechanga Casino, which was a short distance from where the robbery
occurred. At approximately 3:45
p.m.,
Pechanga security personnel found the car in a parking garage at the
casino. While the car was being watched,
they observed defendant go from the casino to the car and open the trunk. Security personnel told defendant to “come
over here.†At that time, defendant
started to run, but security stopped him and took him into custody.
Pechanga
security personnel called law enforcement.
Sheriff’s Deputy Anderson was dispatched to the parking garage. When the deputy arrived, she looked in the
trunk of the vehicle and saw the victim’s purse. The victim’s wallet was later found in a
men’s restroom inside the casino. There
were no credit or bank cards in the wallet when it was found.
ANALYSIS
After defendant
appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent
him. Counsel has filed a brief under the
authority of
and Anders v. California (1967) 386
U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts and
potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to undertake a review of
the entire record.
We
offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal
supplemental brief, but he has not done so.
Pursuant to the mandate of People
v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the
record and find no arguable issues.
The
judgment is affirmed.
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
J.
We concur:
HOLLENHORST
Acting P. J.
CODRINGTON
J.
name="_ftn1" title=""> [1] All further statutory references are to the
Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
name="_ftn2" title=""> [2] We note that the record includes signed
verdict forms for count 1 showing defendant was found guilty of three charges,
i.e., section 211, a lesser offense of section 487, subdivision (c), and a
lesser offense of section 488.
