People v. Thomas CA5

Filed 9/30/25 P. v. Thomas 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F088835 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CR-21-001250) v.

RHUBEN ALAN THOMAS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Kellee C. Westbrook, Judge. Matthew J. Smith, 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, Ivan P. Marrs and Corinne D. Heinstein, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- Appellant Rhuben Alan Thomas was convicted by jury of one count of attempted robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211/664). In a bifurcated court trial, the court found that

appellant had suffered four prior strike convictions (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and four serious felony convictions (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a)). At sentencing, the court struck the prior serious felony enhancements but declined to strike the strike priors. Appellant was sentenced to prison for 25 years to life. On appeal, appellant contends his conviction must be reversed because the court erroneously admitted evidence of prior robberies appellant committed in order to prove identity and common scheme or plan. He contends the evidence regarding the uncharged robberies was not sufficiently similar to the charged attempted robbery to be admissible as proof of identity under Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b). He further argues that, as admitted to prove common scheme or plan, it was more prejudicial than probative and should have been excluded under Evidence Code section 352. Appellant also contends the court erroneously applied a limit in awarding his presentence custody credits, which respondent concedes. We modify the sentence to reflect the appropriate amount of presentence custody credits and affirm the judgment as modified. FACTS On December 21, 2020, a man with dreadlocks wearing a hat, sunglasses, a light- colored striped shirt, and white tennis shoes entered a bank. He approached the teller desk, made small talk about the weather with the teller, and passed her a folded note. According to the teller, the note “said something to the effect of to give him 50s and 100s or—I can’t remember if it was I’ll hurt you or—it was something threatening though.” The teller was “[t]errified.” She froze and told the man she needed to call her supervisor over. While they were waiting for the supervisor, the man told the teller to hurry and asked for the note back. He told her if she did not give him the money, he would shoot her. He started counting and when he got as far as “three” or “four,” he walked out. He did not obtain any money. Security camera footage from the bank depicting the attempted robbery was admitted and played for the jury.