People v. Wilson CA2/4

Filed 10/22/13 P. v. Wilson CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B239940

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA082556) v.

RANDALL D. WILSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Steven R. Van Sicklen, Judge. Affirmed. Suzann E. Papagoda, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr. and Robert C. Schneider, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Randall D. Wilson appeals from his conviction of being a felon in possession of body armor in violation of former Penal Code section 12370, subdivision (a)1. His sole contention on appeal is that he was prejudiced by the trial court‘s error in admitting evidence that he brandished a weapon on a prior occasion. We find no error and affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Los Angeles County Sheriff‘s Deputies Ludy Orellano and Anthony Maldonado were on patrol in the early morning hours of October 15, 2011. They saw a large group of men and women in front of a liquor store. Some of the men were raising their hands and lifting their shirts. The officers made a U-turn to investigate whether a fight was about to occur. When they approached the location, about eight of the men started running eastbound onto 94th Street. The officers followed the running men and activated the spotlights on their patrol car. They saw one of the men, later identified as appellant, making furtive movements to his waistband and to his chest. As they came closer, Deputy Orellano saw appellant move his hands to his waistband. Appellant started to take off his shirt, which drew the deputy‘s attention because of concern that he was reaching for a weapon. When appellant took off his shirt, Deputy Orellano saw that he was wearing a blue ballistic vest. He saw appellant throw the vest over the wall west of a house. Appellant stopped in front of the house where other men had gathered. Deputy Orellano had a clear view of appellant. He was sure appellant was the man in the ballistic vest. Deputy Maldonado was 100 percent positive that appellant was the man he saw wearing body armor. The two deputies detained all the men, including appellant. Deputy Orellano retrieved the ballistic vest that appellant had thrown over the fence. Appellant was arrested.