People v. Lamar CA4/1

Filed 7/30/25 P. v. Lamar CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D086177

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. FWV22003765)

CHRISTOPHER JAY LAMAR,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Michael Knish, Judge. Affirmed. Sheila O’Connor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson, and Elana Miller, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. A jury convicted Christopher Jay Lamar of seven counts related to the

robbery of a jewelry store: two counts of robbery (Pen. Code, § 2111), three counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b)), and two

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

counts of possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)). The jury also found true allegations that Lamar personally used a firearm during the commission of the robberies and assaults (§§ 12022.5, subds. (a), (d), 12022.53, subd. (b), 1192.7, subd. (c), 667.5, subd. (c)) and was personally armed while unlawfully possessing a firearm (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)). The court sentenced Lamar to an aggregate prison term of 50 years to life, plus seven years four months. Lamar timely appealed. Lamar asserts the court prejudicially erred by allowing the investigating detective to testify as an expert about cell phone call detail records. The People contend the detective had sufficient qualifications to testify as an expert on the subject, and, alternatively, any error in the admission of her testimony was harmless. We conclude the trial court did not prejudicially err in admitting the testimony. We, therefore, affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. Robbery On October 15, 2022, two men entered a jewelry store wearing black clothing and masks and said, “This is an assault.” One of the men wore a “uniform” jacket and carried a gun. The store owner told the men law enforcement was coming and activated an alarm. The man wearing the uniform jacket ran to her and said, “Hell no.” He put his gun to her head, and then he hit her twice on the head with the weapon. The man took gold, jewelry, and two cell phones from the owner’s desk and asked, “Where is the cash, Bitch?” The other man broke display cases. The suspects also pointed their guns at a man shopping in the store and ordered him to the ground. The suspects stole over $20,000 worth of merchandise. Around the time of the robbery, a witness driving in the shopping center parking lot saw a car speed up to her, almost hitting her. The witness 2