People v. Williams CA2/6

Filed 4/21/14 P. v. Williams CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B248053 (Super. Ct. No. BA404512-01) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v.

GLENN A. WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Glenn A. Williams appeals a judgment following conviction by jury of second degree robbery and assault with a firearm. (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 245, subd. (a)(2).)1 The jury found true an allegation that Williams personally used a firearm. (§ 12022.53, subd. (b).) It acquitted him of robbery of another victim. The trial court sentenced Williams to 15 years in state prison. Williams contends that the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct by quoting a juror's voir dire response. In the absence of any prejudice, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Evangelina Rivera testified that as she got into her car at 5:40 a.m., a man pulled her car door open, held a gun to her temple, and demanded money. She gave him a bag that held approximately $300 in cash, her debit card, credit card, Target card,

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.

identification card, and health insurance card. She refused to give him her car keys. The man hit her seven times on the head with the gun and then ran to a waiting car. Part of the man's face was covered by a hood and a handkerchief during the robbery. Rivera remembered his eyes, his ears, his short hair, his size, and his hooded jacket. She did not notice a facial tattoo. Rivera identified Williams in a photo line-up in which each man had a black rectangle covering the position of Williams's facial tattoo. She also identified Williams in court. She identified a gun that Williams had when he was arrested as looking like the gun used in the robbery. Rivera's cards were found in the street about two hours after she was robbed. A fingerprint on the back of her Target card matched Williams's. During voir dire, defense counsel questioned prospective jurors about Williams's appearance, including his tattoos. Some jurors said they had noticed Williams's tattoos, some said they had tattoos themselves and had no negative opinions about them, and one juror said tattoos made him (or her) think of a gang. The trial court admonished the jurors not to judge anyone by their tattoos and reminded them that many basketball players have tattoos. When counsel asked if jurors had "problems" with Williams's tattoos, Juror No. 8 responded, "I didn't see any tattoos. I'm sorry. I wasn't looking for that specifically . . . and I was in back, so I don't know if--I can't see him from here either, so--" Juror No. 9 said, "I haven't noticed any on that particular person." In closing argument, the prosecutor said, "[Defense counsel is] going to tell you it can't be his client because the women didn't see any . . . tattoos on his face.[2] But I'll point out this, ladies and gentlemen, the juror seated in seat No. [8] said herself in the course of the voir dire process when both counsel and I had an opportunity to talk with you that she couldn't see the tattoos on the defendant's face when she has been in the same courtroom, under much better lighting, and certainly under different circumstances."