People v. Underwood CA2/8

Filed 11/10/21 P. v. Underwood CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B309928

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA148993) v.

HASAN TARIQ UNDERWOOD,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Raul A. Sahagun, Judge. Affirmed.

Adrian Dresel-Velasquez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

**********

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Appellate counsel appointed to represent defendant and appellant Hasan Tariq Underwood filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) in which no issues were raised. The brief included a declaration from counsel that he reviewed the record and sent a letter to defendant explaining his evaluation of the record. Counsel further declared he advised defendant of his right, under Wende, to submit a supplemental brief within 30 days, and forwarded copies of the record to defendant. Defendant filed a supplemental brief asserting lack of substantial evidence, his sentence is unfair, and the court acted improperly in disregarding the prosecution’s request to dismiss both prior strike convictions. We affirm. In March 2019, defendant was charged with two counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). The charges arose from an incident on September 25, 2018, in which defendant confronted two teenage girls on the street and threatened to shoot them if they did not put down their cell phones. After the girls put their phones on the sidewalk, defendant grabbed both phones and fled in his car. It was also alleged defendant had suffered two prior robbery convictions in 2015 (§§ 667, subds. (a)(1), (b)–(j) & 1170.12). After several continuances, some of which were caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, trial by jury began at the end of October 2020. The court granted defendant’s request to bifurcate trial of the prior conviction allegations and denied the prosecution’s motion to admit evidence of defendant’s prior robbery convictions pursuant to Evidence Code section 1101. The two victims, Alexis C. and Jazlyn D., testified. Their descriptions of the incident were substantially similar. Alexis