People v. Straws CA2/6

Filed 9/18/14 P. v. Straws CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B243293 (Super. Ct. No. BA394094) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v.

ANTHONY STRAWS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Anthony Straws appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of three counts of perjury based on false statements he had made in applications for a driver's license. (Pen. Code, § 118, subd. (a).)1 Appellant admitted two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and one prior serious or violent felony conviction within the meaning of California's "Three Strikes" law. (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d).) He was sentenced to prison for 10 years. Appellant argues that the trial court erroneously denied his Wheeler-Batson motion. (People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258 (Wheeler); Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79 [106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69] (Batson).) The motion contested the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to strike Hispanic women from the jury. We affirm. Wheeler-Batson Motion

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

"The applicable law is well settled. '[Under Wheeler,] [a] prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to strike prospective jurors on the basis of group bias - that is, bias against 'members of an identifiable group distinguished on racial, religious, ethnic, or similar grounds' - violates the right of a criminal defendant to trial by a jury drawn from a representative cross-section of the community under article I, section 16 of the state Constitution. [Citations.] [2] [Under Batson,] [s]uch a practice also violates the defendant's right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. [Citations.] [¶] 'The United States Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed that Batson states the procedure and standard trial courts should use when handling motions challenging peremptory strikes. "First, the defendant must make out a prima facie case 'by showing that the totality of the relevant facts gives rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose.' [Citations.] Second, once the defendant has made out a prima facie case, the 'burden shifts to the State to explain adequately the racial exclusion' by offering permissible race-neutral justifications for the strikes. [Citations.] Third, '[i]f a race-neutral explanation is tendered, the trial court must then decide . . . whether the opponent of the strike has proved purposeful racial discrimination.' [Citation.]" ' [Citations.]" (People v. Zambrano (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1082, 1104, disapproved on another ground in People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421, fn. 22.) Jury Selection After the prosecutor exercised her fifth peremptory challenge, appellant made a Wheeler-Batson motion. Defense counsel contended that "there's a prima facie showing" of "a systematic exclusion specifically of Hispanic women." Counsel asserted that peremptory challenges had been exercised against three Hispanic women - juror numbers 1, 8, and 21. Our Supreme Court has "assumed" that "Hispanic women constitute a separate cognizable group for Wheeler/Batson purposes, distinct from both women generally and Hispanics generally." (People v. Bonilla (2007) 41 Cal.4th 313, 344, & fn.