People v. Goldberg CA2/2

Filed 4/10/15 P. v. Goldberg CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B257232

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LA073080) v.

SAMUEL GOLDBERG,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT:*

Defendant Samuel Goldberg appeals his judgment of conviction and 14-year sentence for two counts of robbery and one count of attempted robbery. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues. On November 20, 2014, we gave notice to defendant that his counsel had failed to find any arguable issues and that defendant had 30 days within which to submit by brief or letter any grounds of appeal, contentions, or arguments he wished this court to consider. Defendant filed a brief in which he requests that this court address the following: (1) Was there sufficient evidence that he aided and abetted in the commission

* ASHMANN-GERST, Acting P.J., CHAVEZ, J., HOFFSTADT, J.

of the offenses; and (2) Did the court err in denying his Romero1 motion to strike his prior “strike” conviction. We have reviewed the record and affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND A. Factual Background 1. Prosecution Evidence Around midnight on December 14, 2012, defendant who was accompanied by Joe Luis Carranza, pulled his vehicle up beside three men who were standing outside an apartment complex in Studio City. Carranza, wearing a cap and gloves got out of the vehicle, pointed a semiautomatic handgun at the three men and demanded their wallets. Two of the victims turned over credit cards, cash, a watch, and a cell phone, while the third victim had his wallet with him but refused to give it to Carranza. Carranza got back into the vehicle on the passenger side and appellant drove away. One of the victims recorded the vehicle’s license plate number and the police issued a warrant for the vehicle. Approximately one month later police stopped a vehicle being driven by defendant’s mother that matched the description in the warrant. Defendant was located at the family home and a search of defendant’s bedroom uncovered the watch taken from one of the robbery victims. Defendant was arrested, informed of his Miranda2 rights, and agreed to talk to police investigators. The audio recording of defendant’s statement was admitted into evidence and played for the jury. Defendant stated that on the night of the robbery he and Carranza drank some beers and drove around. Carranza asked if defendant wanted to get some money and defendant responded that he did. Carranza told defendant to stop the car when they saw a group of men standing on the street. Defendant watched as Carranza put on gloves, pulled out a gun and jumped out of the car. Defendant saw Carranza rob the men at gunpoint. After Carranza got back into the