 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Richmond2/19/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Defendants and appellants, Charles Eric Richmond and Sakari Stanley Tucker, appeal from the judgments entered following their convictions, by jury trial, for robbery and possession of a firearm by a felon (Tucker only), with prior serious felony convictions (Richmond only) and prior prison term findings (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 12021, 667, subds. (a) -(i), 667.5). Sentenced to state prison terms of 16 years, defendants contend there was trial and sentencing error. In addition, Richmond has filed an accompanying habeas corpus petition.
The judgments are affirmed. Richmond's habeas corpus petition is denied.
BACKGROUND
Viewed in accordance with the usual rule of appellate review (People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206), the evidence established the following.
Defendants Richmond and Tucker were convicted of having robbed a woman who worked at a hair salon. In unconnected incidents, Tucker pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and to having committed another robbery.
On January 8, 2000, undercover officers had Tucker under surveillance. Detective James Harris testified that in the early evening he saw Tucker get into a car driven by Richmond. Harris followed the car from Los Angeles to Sherman Oaks. The defendants made this trip by taking surface streets and making short stops at various alleys and parking lots. By 8:00 p.m., the surveillance team had lost sight of the defendants.
Rachael Grace worked at a hair salon in Sherman Oaks. The salon had a back door leading to an alley. On January 8, 2000, Grace's car was parked in the alley behind the salon. Around 10:00 p.m., Grace locked up and prepared to go home. Suddenly, Tucker came running up to her in the alley, grabbed her by the shoulders and pushed her to the ground. Tucker said: " ive me all your fuckin' money now. Give me your money. I am going to kill you." He had her go back into the salon. Two or three minutes later, Richmond came in through the salon's back door. Richmond said, " et's get this bitch. Let's beat her down. Let's get her money." Both Tucker and Richmond were pushing Grace's head down, telling her not to look at them. Then they put her in the bathroom and wrapped an apron around her head.
Grace told them she had money in her purse. The defendants were angry that she didn't have more money. One of the defendants "was saying, well, let's just beat her down. Let's just beat her, you know. Let's just kill her." Grace was "scared - I was talking to them, trying to - you know, save myself." She told them: "I am your sister. You know, you shouldn't be robbing from your own people. And they were telling me, shut up, you know. We are going to kill you or beat you down." "Eventually, I remember one of them - I think it was [Richmond] . . . he was, like, well, let's just beat her. Let's just beat her down anyhow." Nevertheless, after ordering her to stay in the bathroom, the defendants left.
CONTENTIONS
1. There was Wheeler error during jury selection.
2. Richmond was denied effective assistance because his attorney failed to call two witnesses to testify.
3. The trial court erred by giving CALJIC 17.41.1 (nullification instruction).
4. The trial court erred by refusing to grant Richmond a continuance so he could prep
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|