People v. Servillo CA2/2
Filed 9/1/16 P. v. Servillo CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B261822
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA421848) v.
FRANK MILES SERVILLO,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Melissa N. Widdifield, Judge. Affirmed.
Meredith J. Watts, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr., Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and David A. Voet, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ******
Among other crimes, a jury convicted Frank Miles Servillo (defendant) of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211),1 and found that he “personally used” a firearm in the course of that robbery (§ 12022.53, subds. (b) & (e)(1)). On appeal, defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s finding of “use” as well as the trial court’s admission of evidence that the robbery victim and his mother received anonymous threats prior to their testimony. Defendant’s arguments lack merit, and we accordingly affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. Facts Six men accosted two seventh graders as they were walking in Highland Park to get dinner. One of the men issued a gang challenge, asking, “Where you from?” and proclaiming either, “This is Avenues” or, “This is Avenues 57.” The Avenues are a gang in Highland Park. When one of the boys, Edward, declined to state a gang affiliation, the man who challenged them asked if Edward or his friend had any money, and then asked Edward to hand over the skateboard he was holding in his hand. When Edward refused, the man reached toward his waistband and lifted up his shirt, making it possible for Edward to see “the figure of a gun.” Neither Edward nor his friend actually saw the gun itself, but both understood the man’s gesture as conveying that “he had a gun or something” because “people put guns right there in their waistband.” The man repeated his demand for Edward’s skateboard. Fearing that he would be shot, Edward handed over the skateboard. One of the other men in the group then said, “Now get out of here before this guy gets crazy on you” or, “Just keep walking.” The boys took this advice, and quickly left the area. The boys called the police. Within minutes, police arrived at the street where the boys reported the robbery had occurred. The police gave chase on foot to a man who fled at the sight of the police car and pursued that man into a backyard party. At the party,
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)