P. v. Hicks CA2/7

Filed 5/1/13 P. v. Hicks CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

THE PEOPLE, B241545

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA095031) v.

JIM HENRY HICKS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Steven D. Blades, Judge. Affirmed. Jim Henry Hicks, in pro. per., and Christopher Nalls, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________________

Jim Henry Hicks appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction, after a jury trial, for petty theft with prior theft-related convictions. No meritorious issues have been identified following a review of the record by Hicks’s appointed counsel and our own independent review of the record and analysis of the contentions presented by Hicks in a handwritten supplemental brief. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Jim Henry Hicks was charged with stealing a television and other merchandise from a Wal-Mart store and threatening a loss prevention officer with a cane. The amended information charged the offenses of petty theft with an allegation he had suffered three prior theft-related convictions (two for receiving stolen property and one for theft with a prior theft-related conviction) (Pen. Code, §§ 484, subd. (a), 666, count 1)1, criminal threat (§ 422, count 2) and assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1), count 3). The information further alleged that Hicks had suffered a 1980 robbery conviction qualifying as a strike (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)); that he had suffered a serious felony conviction within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a); and that he had served a separate prison term for a felony (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Represented by appointed counsel, Hicks pleaded not guilty to the charges and denied the special allegations. Hicks admitted his three prior convictions for purposes of section 666 (elevating the current petty theft charge to a felony) before trial. The trial court granted Hicks’s motion for a bifurcated jury trial on the prior conviction allegations. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury convicted Hicks of committing petty theft (count 1) as charged, but acquitted him of making a criminal threat (count 2). The trial court found the jury was hopelessly deadlocked on the aggravated assault charge and declared a mistrial as to count 3. The court subsequently denied a defense motion to dismiss that count (§ 1385).