People v. Stover CA2/3

Filed 1/14/21 P. v. Stover CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE, B300315

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA150132) v.

STEVEN MATHEW STOVER,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Debra Cole-Hall, Judge. Affirmed as modified. Katja Grosch, 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, Michael C. Keller and Charles J. Sarosy, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ——————————

A jury convicted Steven Mathew Stover of second degree robbery. On appeal, he contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that his one-year priors must be stricken. We reject his sufficiency of the evidence contention but strike his one-year priors. BACKGROUND On March 1, 2019, a customer at a grocery store informed an employee that Stover was taking two large buckets of laundry detergent without paying for them. After Stover ignored requests to leave the buckets in the store, the store’s manager followed Stover two to three blocks from the store and asked Stover to return the items. Stover warned the store manager not to mess with “papa.” He swung the buckets at the store manager, striking his arm and leg. They wrestled over the buckets until Stover dropped them and left. Based on this evidence, a jury found Stover guilty of second degree robbery (Pen. Code,1 § 211). On July 29, 2019, the trial court sentenced Stover to three years. Although the information had alleged two priors within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b), the prosecutor elected not to pursue one and Stover admitted the other, which was for assault (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)). The trial court stayed the sentence on the prior. DISCUSSION I. Sufficiency of the evidence Stover contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove the force or fear element of robbery. We disagree.