People v. Egly CA3

Filed 2/27/13 P. v. Egly CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C067421

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 09F08426)

v.

KEITH ALLEN EGLY,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Keith Allen Egly guilty of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code,1 § 496) and found true the allegations that he had been convicted of three prior serious felonies. (§§ 667, subd. (a), 1170.12, subd. (b).) Sentenced to 25 years to life, defendant appeals. He contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying both his

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

Romero2 motion and his motion to reduce his felony conviction to a misdemeanor. (§ 17, subd. (b).) We disagree and shall affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On the evening of November 6, 2009, Amanda Guzman was leaving a 99¢ Only Store in Sacramento with her purchases and purse in a shopping cart, when a man rode up on a bicycle, struck her with his elbow, and grabbed her purse. Her purse contained her cell phone and $1,401 in cash. A bystander called the police and Guzman provided a description of the thief to the responding officer. The following day, Guzman’s son called Guzman’s cell phone. The person who answered said he bought the cell phone and agreed to meet to exchange the cell phone for $100 so he could buy some “weed.” At the designated meeting place, Guzman identified defendant (who was in possession of her cell phone) to the police as the person who had stolen her purse. Defendant had been fitted with an electronic monitoring ankle bracelet in March 2009. On the night of the robbery, the bracelet showed him at his apartment from 8:00 p.m. to 9:26 p.m., moving at six miles per hour and arriving at the 99 Only Store at 9:45 p.m., leaving several minutes later and traveling at speeds ranging from six to 15 miles per hour, stopping in a “dead end” area at 9:50 p.m. for 10 minutes, and returning to his apartment by 10:25 p.m. Guzman was inconsistent as to what time her purse was taken. Police were dispatched to the location of the robbery at 9:53 p.m. The jury found defendant guilty of receiving stolen property, but was unable to reach a verdict on the charge of robbery. The jury also found defendant had been previously convicted of assault with intent to commit a felony (§ 220) in 1989, and robbery (§ 211) in 1993 and again in 1995.