P. v. Miller CA2/7

Filed 7/15/13 P. v. Miller CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

THE PEOPLE, B239942

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA081419) v.

STEVEN BRUCE MILLER,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, James R. Brandlin, Judge. Affirmed.

Rita L. Swenor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Michael R. Johnsen and Jonathan M. Krauss, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_____________________

Steven Bruce Miller appeals from the judgment entered following his convictions arising from a bank robbery. He contends his state prison sentence of 160 years to life is unconstitutional. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On the morning of October 29, 2010, Miller rushed into One West Bank in Redondo Beach, wearing a bandana over his face and holding a handgun. After announcing he was committing a robbery, Miller demanded money from four different bank employees at gunpoint, repeatedly yelled profanities and threatened to kill them. The employees surrendered approximately $9,000 in cash, and Miller fled. He was arrested after dropping a pillow case at the scene, which contained his DNA.1 Miller was charged by amended information with four counts of second degree robbery, with special allegations he had personally used a firearm to commit the offenses (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 12022.53, subd. (b)). Miller was also alleged to have suffered three prior serious or violent felony convictions within the meaning of Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1) and the “Three Strikes law” (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and to have previously served two separate prison terms for felonies (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). The jury convicted Miller as charged and found true the firearm-use enhancement allegations. In a bifurcated proceeding, Miller admitted he had previously suffered three prior strike convictions and had served two separate prison terms. At sentencing, defense counsel argued Miller’s history of mental illness, less than average intelligence and prolonged physical abuse as a child were mitigating factors justifying the imposition of concurrent terms.2 In a sentencing memorandum and before the trial court, the prosecutor argued consecutive terms should be imposed based on