People v. Lanier CA2/8

Filed 10/2/14 P. v. Lanier CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B253024 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County v. Super. Ct. No. MA060211 )

STANFORD LANIER,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. James B. Pierce, Judge. Affirmed.

Dale E. Manolakas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Jonathan J. Kline and Taylor Nguyen, Deputy Attorneys General for Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________________

INTRODUCTION A jury found Stanford Lanier guilty of second degree commercial burglary, in violation of Penal Code section 459. On appeal, Lanier contends: (1) the trial court prejudicially erred when it failed to grant a continuance to locate a witness whom he expected to testify on his behalf; and (2) the trial court prejudicially erred when it excluded a defense investigator’s testimony regarding the witness’s out-of-court statements. We affirm the judgment. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On July 18, 2013 Lanier and Rosalyn Jones were arrested at a Walmart retail store in Lancaster. That night, Lanier and Jones entered the store and approached the cash register with a shopping cart “full of items or merchandise.” During the check-out, Jones and Lanier used a divider to split the items into two separate transactions. The first transaction consisted of various food items, which Jones paid for using an EBT card. Lanier then placed the purchased items into their cart. During the second transaction, Jones placed beer and a “blender or mixer” on the counter. She told the cashier that she wished to return the mixer and indicated that she intended to use the refund to pay for the rest of her items. The cashier told Jones that she would have to go to customer service to return the item. When Jones stated that she did not want to hold up the line, the cashier offered to suspend the second transaction until Jones returned to pay for it.1 Jones left her wallet at the cash register and “grabbed and took [the mixer]” to customer service. When Jones left, Lanier remained at the register while the cashier “rang up” the rest of the items. As the cashier scanned the remaining unpurchased items, Lanier loaded them into the shopping cart with the other purchased items from the first transaction.