People v. Pineda CA2/1

Filed 7/1/21 P. v. Pineda CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B309435

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA099581) v.

ASHLEY PINEDA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael Villalobos, Judge. Affirmed. Cheryl Lutz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. _______________________________

In 2017, a jury found Ashley Pineda guilty of second degree 1 robbery (Pen. Code, § 212.5, subd. (c)). Evidence presented at trial demonstrated Pineda’s codefendant, Josefina Pedroza, stole a case of beer from a convenience store, while Pineda waited for Pedroza outside the store. The store clerk followed Pedroza out of the store and retrieved the case of beer. As the clerk walked back to the store, Pineda, who was intoxicated, punched him in the back, face, and arm, scratched him, and pulled his shirt, attempting to take the case of beer from him. Pineda and Pedroza followed the clerk into the store, continuing to strike him and trying to take the beer. As Pedroza scuffled with the clerk, Pineda took a bottle of champagne and exited the store. (People v. Pedroza (Feb. 6, 2020, B286431) [nonpub. opn.], pp. 2-3, 5-7.)2 Pineda admitted she had a prior conviction, a robbery (§ 211), within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(j) & 1170.12, subd. (b)) and the prior serious felony enhancement (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court sentenced her to nine years in prison: the low term of two years for the robbery offense, doubled to four years for the prior strike conviction, plus five years for the prior serious felony enhancement. Pineda appealed from the judgment of her conviction, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the guilty verdict and asserting other claims of trial error, which we rejected. She also contended the matter must be remanded to the trial court in light of Senate Bill No. 1393 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1013,