People v. Mitchell CA2/2

Filed 2/25/14 P. v. Mitchell CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B247553

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA121830) v.

RAMOND MITCHELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Eleanor J. Hunter, Judge. Affirmed.

Steven A. Brody, 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, Chung L. Mar and Viet H. Nguyen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________________________________

Appellant Ramond Mitchell was charged with two counts of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211)1 but was convicted by a jury of one count of the lesser included offense of grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a)). The trial court found that appellant had one prior felony conviction under the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subd. (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)). Appellant was sentenced to a prison term of four years in state prison consisting of the middle term of two years, doubled for the prior strike. The court awarded 307 credit days consisting of 268 days of actual custody time and 39 days of conduct credits.2 The sole contention on appeal is that the evidence failed to show that the owner did not consent to the taking. We affirm. PROCEDURAL HISTORY The matter proceeded to a jury trial. At the close of evidence and after the jury instructions were read, appellant requested leave to reopen so that he could testify. After he had testified, the court instructed the jury on the lesser included offense of grand theft without objection from the defense. The jury returned verdicts of not guilty on the two counts of second degree robbery. The jury found appellant guilty of one count of grand theft. FACTS3 A. Prosecution Evidence Tiffany Cox knew appellant on a personal level through a friend. Cox had a couple of sexual encounters with appellant, whom she considered a friend. Appellant