People v. Hageman CA2/4

Filed 10/9/13 P. v. Hageman CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS   California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for  purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B243703

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA092431) v.

DAVID HAGEMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark C. Kim, Judge. Affirmed. Ann Krausz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.   ______________________________

Defendant David Hageman appeals from the judgment entered after his jury conviction of second degree robbery. His appointed counsel filed a Wende brief. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) On June 26, 2013, we directed counsel to send the record and a copy of counsel’s brief to defendant and notified defendant of his right to respond within 30 days. No response was filed. We briefly describe the facts and procedural history of the case, the crime of which defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110.) On May 21, 2012, defendant waited in line at a Top Valu Market in Long Beach. The store surveillance video caught him reaching into the liquor shelf behind the counter, taking a bottle from the shelf, tucking it in the back of his pants, and leaving the store. The cashier noticed defendant while he stood in line and overheard him tell another customer that he did not have money to buy beer. She saw him suddenly walk out of the store with something that looked like a bottle tucked in the back of his T-shirt. The cashier called the store’s assistant manager and told him she thought defendant had stolen a bottle of beer. The assistant manager followed defendant outside the store and also noticed something was tucked in the back of defendant’s shirt. He demanded that defendant return the bottle. Defendant refused, claiming the bottle was his, and continued walking. The surveillance video captured the confrontation and showed defendant pushing the assistant manager. Because defendant was bigger, the manager feared for his own safety and backed away. The cashier and assistant manager identified defendant in a photographic lineup. Defendant was charged with second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.)1 A prior conviction was alleged under section 667.5, subdivision (b). The case was tried to a jury. Defense counsel argued the video footage did not show clearly that defendant took a bottle from the store or that defendant behaved aggressively when confronted by the                                                                                                                                                                                    1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.