People v. Walker CA1/2

Filed 6/29/15 P. v. Walker CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A139245 v. STANLEY WALKER, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 05-130345-2) Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Stanley Walker was convicted, following a jury trial, of second degree robbery. On appeal, he contends the trial court erred when it refused to dismiss a prospective juror for cause and denied him additional peremptory challenges. This, according to appellant, resulted in the seating of an incompetent juror, in violation of his state and federal constitutional right to trial by an impartial jury. We shall affirm the judgment. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Appellant was charged by information with one count of second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, §§ 211/212.5, subd. (c).) At the conclusion of a jury trial, the jury found appellant guilty as charged. On June 18, 2013, the trial court placed appellant on probation for three years. On July 17, 2013, appellant filed a notice of appeal. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Aristotle Rivera testified that, on the morning of February 4, 2013, he went to the Antioch Skatepark to try to learn how to skateboard. While Rivera was skating alone at

1

the park, appellant and another person, who was smaller than appellant, walked in. After making eye contact with them, Rivera got scared and turned away. When he turned to look at them again, he saw that the smaller person was going through his backpack, which he had left on a bench near the entrance to the park. Rivera said in a loud voice, “ ‘Hey that’s my bag,’ ” and appellant, who was standing right next to the other person, responded, “ ‘I know, I know.’ ” Rivera, who felt cornered because the two people were between him and the only exit from the skate park, said there was nothing in the backpack except food and water. When they did not respond, he asked, “ ‘Look, what do you guys want?’ ” The smaller person said, “[w]e want what’s in your pockets,” which made Rivera feel even more afraid and vulnerable. Rivera then said that he did not have any cash, but that he did have a phone in his pocket. The smaller person said, “ ‘Okay, show it.’ ” Rivera understood this to mean that they wanted his phone, so he took it out of his pocket and placed it on a ledge. He did this because he did not want to get hurt. Appellant and the smaller person walked toward Rivera, and the smaller person picked up his phone. Appellant was holding Rivera’s fleece sweater, which Rivera had left on the bench next to his backpack. The smaller person asked Rivera what else he had in his pockets and whether he had a wallet. Rivera said he had no cash, but appellant said, “ ‘Well, maybe there’ll be something that I can swipe.’ ” Rivera, who believed appellant was referring to a credit card, gave his wallet to the smaller person, who, after seeing that there was no cash inside, gave it back to Rivera. Appellant and the smaller person started to walk away. As they were leaving, appellant said, “ ‘Oh, a Toyota,’ ” referring to Rivera’s car keys, which had been in his sweater. Rivera pleaded with them not to take the car, which belonged to his wife, and the smaller person told appellant to give the car keys back to Rivera. Appellant rubbed the keys on the inside of his shirt and then dropped them on the bench near Rivera’s bag. As the two of them walked away with Rivera’s cell phone, the smaller person said, “ ‘We don’t want any problems. Don’t tell anyone.’ ” After they left, Rivera went to a nearby community center, where he used the telephone to call the police.