P. v. Beasley CA5

Filed 6/27/13 P. v. Beasley CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F064365 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F10900213) v.

ANTHONY BEASLEY, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Edward Sarkisian, Jr., Judge. Stephen Gilbert, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Catherine Chatman and Eric L. Christoffersen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Franson, J.

Defendant and appellant Anthony Beasley contends the trial court abused its discretion in failing to exclude certain evidence pursuant to Evidence Code section 352 and that the totality of evidence is insufficient to sustain one of his attempted robbery convictions. Neither contention has merit; we affirm the judgment. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Viewed most favorably to the jury’s verdict (People v. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680, 701), the evidence at trial showed the following: At about 2:30 p.m. on December 18, 2009, David Medina was standing in front of McKinley Market, where he worked as a clerk. He saw a blue car go by with three men in it. Minutes later, two of the men, defendant and Cleshawn Brown, came around the corner of the store. Medina recognized defendant from serving in prison with him. When he told defendant they had worked in the prison kitchen together, defendant replied, “No, you got the wrong guy.” Defendant asked whether the store cashed checks and Medina said he could not unless “the boss” was present. Defendant and Brown entered the store. Medina walked to the corner of the store and saw the blue car, now containing only one person, at the very back of the store parking lot. When Medina went back in the store, defendant said he wanted to buy some gloves that were behind the counter. Medina, by this time sensing that something was wrong, said he was still on his break but that “Bob” would help defendant. Medina called to the rear of the store for Bob, even though he knew no one else was in the store. Shortly afterward, the two men left the store. Medina followed the men out. When they turned the corner, they discovered the blue car was no longer there; they appeared confused and continued walking. Brown testified against defendant. He said defendant told him he had a way to make some quick money by “do[ing] a lick” at the store, which meant robbing or stealing from it. He said the men determined Medina knew they were planning to rob the store, so they left.