People v. Swint CA4/3

Filed 8/26/15 P. v. Swint CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G050366

v. (Super. Ct. No. 13NF1803)

JEVON RAMON SWINT, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, William R. Froeberg, Judge. Affirmed. Robert L.S. Angres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal and Collette C. Cavalier, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Appellant Jevon Ramon Swint contends the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to the midterm of three years in prison for aiding and abetting a robbery. He argues the court overlooked some mitigating factors that, if considered, would have necessitated the imposition of the lower term of two years. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment. FACTS Appellant and codefendant David Alvares went to the men’s department of the Sears store in Buena Park. After Alvares stacked up an assortment of pants and shirts, appellant left the store and entered a car in the parking lot. Then Alvares left the store too, without the clothing. He spoke to appellant in the parking lot and then went back inside the store and retrieved the stack of clothes he had previously assembled. Items in hand, he then left the store through an emergency exit, triggering the alarm. When a security officer confronted him outside, Alvares pointed a flare gun at him and made popping sounds with his mouth. He then ran to appellant’s car, threw the clothes inside and got in. Appellant drove away, but the police arrested him the following day. At first he denied any involvement in the robbery, but after the police told him they had surveillance footage of him at the store, he admitted being Alvares’ getaway driver. He claimed it was Alvares’ idea to steal the clothes, and he did not really want to go along with it. At trial, appellant reiterated his claim that he was a reluctant participant in the theft. In fact, he testified he tried to prevent it by slowly circling around in the parking lot while Alvares was in the store. He hoped that if Alvares did not see him when he came outside, it would dissuade him from trying to steal anything. That didn’t happen. And when appellant saw Alvares running to his car with the clothes, he opened the passenger door for him. Although appellant admitted he had previously seen a flare gun at Alvares’ cousins’ house, he claimed Alvares did not have a gun with him on the day of the robbery.