People v. McElroy CA2/3

Filed 8/18/14 P. v. McElroy CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE, B249638

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA127183) v.

CHRISTOPHER A. McELROY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ronald V. Skyers, Judge. Affirmed.

Evan Charles Greenberg, 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 David A. Voet, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION A jury found defendant and appellant Christopher A. McElroy guilty of second degree robbery. On appeal, he contends that the trial court failed to notify his trial counsel of jury questions before responding to them and that the prosecutor committed misconduct. We reject these contentions and affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. Factual background. During the early morning of February 27, 2013, Janae Mixon was on Long Beach Boulevard, working as a prostitute. She saw a car speeding down the street towards her. Defendant got out of the car. Mixon recognized defendant, having seen him in the area before. When defendant ran toward Mixon, she became afraid and ran, but she was pushed and fell. She dropped her cell phone, which defendant took. He left in his car. Mixon flagged down a police officer and gave him the suspect’s description. Defendant was soon detained, and Mixon identified him as the man who took her phone. Her cell phone was in defendant’s car. Video surveillance captured the incident, and the video was played for the jury. II. Procedural background. On May 31, 2013, a jury found defendant guilty of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211).1 On June 19, 2013, after the trial court denied defendant’s new trial motion, the court sentenced defendant to three years, doubled to six years based on a prior strike found true by the court, plus five years under section 667, subdivision (a)(1). Defendant’s total sentence therefore was 11 years in prison.