People v. Turner CA5

Filed 10/22/15 P. v. Turner CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, F068801 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MF10818A) v.

DANIEL JAKE TURNER, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Thomas S. Clark, Judge. Benjamin Owens, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen and Daniel B. Bernstein, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Kane, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Smith, J.

INTRODUCTION Appellant Daniel Jake Turner was convicted by jury of second-degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 212.5, subd. (c), count 1) and assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4), count 2). In addition, the jury found true various enhancement allegations against appellant. Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 19 years in prison. Appellant contends the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct during her closing argument by improperly vouching for witnesses. He asserts that although he did not make a timely objection or request an admonition, the issue is reviewable because either would have been futile. We disagree and affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Prosecution Case On October 1, 2013, Yun He Schmidt was working at her recycling business with her employee, Jahari Currie. Appellant, who came into the business every day, brought cans and bottles in that morning to redeem for cash. Appellant asked Currie when he took his lunch break and Currie replied that he usually took his lunch around noon. Both Currie and Schmidt testified that appellant, whom they identified at trial, returned to the business later that day. Although Schmidt could not recall precisely when appellant returned, Currie testified that it was around 12:15 p.m. Appellant told Schmidt and Currie that he left a diamond ring in a bag he used to bring in recyclables. Schmidt replied that the bag appellant was looking for should be in the trash, both Currie and Schmidt helped appellant look for the ring. Schmidt asked appellant whether he was sure he had a ring and appellant replied affirmatively. Schmidt then recalled waking up in a hospital emergency room, with no memory of what happened in the interim.