People v. Esquivias CA2/2

Filed 12/17/20 P. v. Esquivias CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B301989

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LA088058- v. 01)

ADAN ESQUIVIAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Thomas Rubinson, Judge. Affirmed.

Ava R. Stralla, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr. and Stacy S. Schwartz, Deputy Attorneys General.

******

A defendant convicted of robbing four businesses over a two-day crime spree argues that the trial court erred in (1) instructing the jury on the factors relevant to eyewitness testimony using the standard CALCRIM instruction, and (2) dismissing only one of his two prior “strike” allegations under our Three Strikes Law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(j), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)).1 These arguments lack merit, so we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY I. Facts A. Robbery of Recycling Innovations On March 15, 2018, defendant walked into a recycling business called Recycling Innovations at lunchtime, put a gun in the back of the on-duty cashier, and demanded money from the cash register. The cashier gave him $75 or $80. The cashier picked defendant out of a photospread and identified him in court. The entire robbery was caught on surveillance video, and the cashier identified defendant on the video. B. Robbery of Metro PCS store Less than two hours after robbing the cashier at Recycling Innovations, defendant walked into a Metro PCS store on Reseda Boulevard, placed his gun on the cashier’s counter, moved the gun back and forth on the counter so as to point it at one of the two on-duty cashiers, and demanded that they empty their cash registers. The cashiers gave defendant between $100 and $200. One of the cashiers identified defendant out of a photospread, and both cashiers identified defendant in court.