P. v. Dawson CA5

Filed 7/30/13 P. v. Dawson CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, F064491

v. (Super. Ct. No. F11905850)

AUDRA FAYE DAWSON, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jonathan B. Conklin, Judge. Patricia L. Brisbois, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen A. McKenna and Rebecca Whitfield, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

 Before Levy, Acting P.J., Cornell, J., and Kane, J.

On December 21, 2011, a jury convicted appellant, Audra Faye Dawson, of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)).1 In a separate proceeding on January 4, 2012, appellant admitted allegations she had suffered two prior felony convictions, each of which qualified as a serious felony conviction under section 667, subdivision (a) (section 667(a)) and as a “strike,”2 and that she had served two separate prison terms for prior felony convictions within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (a) and another separate prison term within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). On March 1, 2012, the court struck the three prior prison term enhancements, denied appellant’s request that the court dismiss one of her strikes pursuant to section 13853 and imposed a sentence of 25 years on the substantive offense plus 5 years on each of the two section 667(a) enhancements. On appeal, appellant contends the court erred in denying her Romero motion. We affirm. FACTS Prosecution Case In the afternoon on October 8, 2011, (October 8), Elizabeth Tapia was walking with her three-year-old son along Olive Avenue in Fresno, on her way to the motel where she and her husband worked, when appellant and appellant’s codefendant, James Hill, approached her. Tapia had seen the couple in the area before but did not know them.