People v. Hall CA5

Filed 6/18/25 P. v. Hall CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, F087937 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F23904380) v.

ERNEST RAY HALL II, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. F. Brian Alvarez, Judge. Ross Thomas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Kenneth N. Sokoler and Sean M. McCoy, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Detjen, Acting P. J., Peña, J. and Smith, J.

Defendant Ernest Ray Hall II contends on appeal that the judgment must be reversed because the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to support his conviction for robbery. The People disagree. We affirm. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On September 12, 2023, the Fresno County District Attorney filed an information charging defendant with second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211;1 count 1). It was further alleged that defendant suffered one prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and one prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)– (d)). The information further alleged aggravating factors (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)). On September 21, 2023, defendant pled not guilty to count 1 and denied the special allegations. On January 11, 2024, a jury found defendant guilty of count 1. Defendant waived his right to a jury on the prior conviction allegations. The trial court found true the allegations that defendant suffered one prior serious felony conviction and one prior strike conviction. On March 12, 2024, defendant filed a Romero2 motion requesting the trial court strike his prior conviction pursuant to section 1385. On March 15, 2024, the trial court denied defendant’s Romero motion to strike the prior conviction allegations. The court sentenced defendant to a total prison term of nine years as follows: on count 1, four years (the low term, doubled pursuant to the prior strike conviction), plus an additional five years for the prior serious felony conviction enhancement (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). On April 24, 2024, defendant filed a notice of appeal.