People v. Madden CA3

Filed 11/14/13 P. v. Madden CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C071435

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 10F06356)

v.

DEMETRI MADDEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

On June 3, 2010, an armed and masked man walked into the Arden branch of the Sacramento Credit Union and demanded money from three tellers, netting about $7,500 in cash before fleeing on foot. A few minutes after the robber fled, police found the mask about 100 yards from the credit union. Three months later, police took defendant Demetri Madden into custody. Defendant’s DNA profile was the same as the profile of DNA taken from the mask. On a cell phone found in defendant’s car, police found pictures of numerous $100 bills, $20 bills, and $10 bills with a date stamp one day after the robbery. There were no photographs showing defendant holding winning lottery tickets or being at a casino or

1

poker table. On the cell phone, police also found pictures of a Wells Fargo Bank, a 7- Eleven, a Radio Shack, a Circle K, and one picture of the security camera of an AM/PM convenience store. According to police, those establishments were common targets of robberies, and it was “very common for robbers to take photographs to case a place and have it on their phones prior to committing a robbery.” There were no pictures of the Sacramento Credit Union. A jury found defendant guilty of three counts of second degree robbery with personal use of a firearm for robbing the Sacramento Credit Union. The court (with defendant representing himself at the time) found defendant had one prior strike, had served two prior prison terms, and had one prior serious felony, and then sentenced him to 37 years eight months in prison. Defendant appeals from the judgment, contending the trial court erred in (1) admitting evidence he had cased other businesses, (2) denying his motion to continue the bench trial on the priors, and (3) failing to arraign him for judgment and sentencing. Finding no prejudicial error, we affirm. DISCUSSION I The Court Erred In Admitting The Casing Evidence, But The Error Was Harmless Defendant contends the court erred in violation of his federal rights to due process and a fair trial by admitting the photographs showing defendant had cased other businesses. In the trial court, the People argued the casing evidence was admissible to show “planning of future crimes” and to put the pictures from defendant’s cell phone “in context” because there were no pictures of him winning the lottery or winning at gambling in a venue like Las Vegas, but rather “what you have are photographs of places that are commonly robbed.” Defense counsel objected based on “352” and “it is not