People v. Ward CA2/1

Filed 10/24/14 P. v. Ward CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B244947

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA392093) v.

JAMES VERNON WARD,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Craig J. Mitchell, Judge. Conditionally reversed with directions. Barbara A. Smith, 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, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and David E. Madeo, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________________

Defendant James Vernon Ward appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of five counts of second degree robbery, four counts of attempted second degree robbery, two counts of grand theft auto, and single counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and assault with a firearm. Defendant objected, pursuant to People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258, 276–277 (Wheeler) and Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79, 85, 96–99 [106 S.Ct. 1712] (Batson), to the prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges against two African-American jurors. The trial court found defendant had shown a prima facie case of group bias, but overruled the objection after the prosecutor stated her reasons with respect to only one of the two jurors. Defendant contends the trial court thereby violated his rights to equal protection and trial by a representative cross-section of the community. We agree and reverse the judgment. BACKGROUND Because defendant’s sole appellate contention pertains to jury selection and he does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment, we set forth a cursory summary of the offenses. 1. The offenses A hooded, masked man wearing latex gloves entered a Bank of America branch in Playa Vista on June 11, 2010, pointed a gun at the three employees and stole $18,900. The robber got into a white 1985–1987 Nissan Sentra that matched a car owned by defendant. On August 18, 2010, two hooded, masked men wearing latex gloves attempted a robbery at the same bank branch after beating a security guard outside and stealing the guard’s gun. All of the employees hid, and the would-be robbers left in a stolen black Jeep Cherokee driven by a third man, who also wore latex gloves. The Jeep was recovered several blocks from the bank. Three latex gloves found in the Jeep and two found just outside the bank contained DNA matching defendant.