People v. Robinson CA2/8

Filed 3/11/15 P. v. Robinson CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B257840

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA131901) v.

ZALMON DARNELL ROBINSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Paul A. Bacigalupo, Judge. Affirmed as modified.

Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

******

Zalmon Darnell Robinson appeals from a judgment following his conviction for robbery and attempted robbery. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), appellant’s counsel filed an opening brief requesting that this court review the record and determine whether any arguable issues exist on appeal. We have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable issue. We correct errors in the abstract of judgment and affirm.1 PROCEDURAL HISTORY An amended information charged appellant with one count of attempted second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 664; count 1) and one count of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211; count 2). It alleged appellant had suffered two prior convictions that qualified as “strikes” (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and as serious felony priors (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). It also alleged appellant had served three prior prison terms. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).) Before trial, the court heard and denied appellant’s motion to relieve his counsel pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. At the request of the defense, the court instructed the jury on the lesser included offenses of attempted petty theft and grand theft. During deliberations, the juror foreperson reported that there was yelling in the jury room; Juror No. 2 slept during trial; and Juror No. 2 stated he believed appellant was not properly represented because he did not testify. When questioned by the court, Juror No. 2 felt strongly about appellant not testifying despite a jury instruction stating appellant had a right not to testify; he admitted looking at a law book the previous evening to research the elements of the charged offense; and he told the court he was a former law student. Over defense counsel’s objection, the court excused the juror.