People v. Cliffin CA2/6

Filed 7/24/14 P. v. Cliffin CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B249324 (Super. Ct. No. NA094834-01) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v.

ROBERT CLIFFIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Robert Cliffin appeals a judgment following his conviction after a jury trial of "unlawful driving or taking a vehicle with a prior" (Veh. Code, §10851, subd. (a)), a felony. We conclude, among other things, that the trial court did not err by asking the jury the issue that caused a deadlock and allowing the defense and the prosecution to present additional closing arguments to the jury on that issue. We affirm. FACTS Solomon Robles owned a Chevy Silverado. Someone stole it on January 28, 2013. Robles did not give the key to the Silverado to anyone and it was locked before the theft. The police subsequently recovered the vehicle and returned it to Robles. Robles noticed there was damage to "the ignition and the steering wheel that hadn't been there before." The windows were broken.

On February 2, 2013, Police Officer Christopher Brammer saw the stolen vehicle and stopped it. Cliffin was driving it. There were two screwdrivers "sitting on the seat." Brammer testified "something had been jammed into the ignition." Consequently, a key could not start the vehicle. There were no keys in the vehicle, and he did not find any keys when he searched Cliffin. Brammer said a screw driver could be used to start the vehicle. Police Officer David Weise testified Cliffin told him, "I don't have the key for the vehicle." Weise asked, "So did you steal the car?" Cliffin responded, "I will be honest. I saw it off of Artesia. I saw it was already open so I took it." Deadlocked Jury After closing arguments, the jury went to the jury room for deliberations. The jury subsequently sent the trial court a note stating: "Can you read Officer Weise['s] statement/report regarding field interview." The court reporter read that portion of his testimony to the jury. Later the jury foreperson told the trial court the jury was not able to reach a verdict. The court: "Tell me what the numbers are. Don't tell me which way, just the numbers on your last vote: six-six, seven-five, four-four." The foreperson: "Eleven, one." The court: "Can you tell me what the issue is?" The foreperson: "The veracity of the statement from the officer when he reported the--what the defendant said." The court: "I am going to ask you to head back into the jury deliberation room. I am going to give the attorneys a few minutes to think about it. I am going to have them address you all again on this issue. And it is not going to take long, three or four minutes each . . . ." The prosecution and defense counsel presented arguments about this issue to the jury. After deliberations, the jury reached a unanimous guilty verdict.