1

Filed 3/3/15 P. v. Williams CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ROBERT CHARLES WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant. A142134

(Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 51311091)

Defendant appeals h is conviction s of robbery, attempted robbery

, and assault with

a deadly weapon . H is attorney has asked this court for an independent review of the

record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Ca l.3d 436. Defendant was informed of h is

right to file a supplemental brief, which he has not done. Upon independent review of the

record, we conclude no arguable issues are presented for review and affirm the judgment.

Background

Defendant was charged with robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)), 1

attempted robbery (§§ 211, 212.5

, subd. (c), 664)

, and assault with a deadly weapon

(§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). The information alleged that during the commission of the robbery

and attempted robbery defendant personally used a deadly weapon within the meaning of

section 12022, subdivision (b) (1) , and that the assault was a serious felony within the

meaning of sections 667 and 1192.7

. It was further alleged that in the commission of the

charged offenses defendant violated the terms of the probation to which he was subject

.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.2

Finally, it was alleged that defendant was eligible to be sentenced to state prison as

specified in section 667.5.

At tri al, Mahesh Ba l ley testified that he was working at his 7

- Eleven store in Bay

Point when a man entered

, showed him a knife

, and told him to get on the floor. Balley

complied. The man jumped over the counter and stuff ed lottery tickets into a bag and

t hen mo ved to the rear of the store. Two customers, Theresa Bestul and Kenneth Jones

,
were in the rear of the store when the man approached them

. The man pointed the knife at

Bestul and ordered her to give him her car keys. She refused and a struggle ensued. When

the man held the knife to Bestul’s neck, Jones pushed him and a fter a struggl e the man

dropped the knife and ran from the store . There was blood on the floor and on the handl e

of the door to the store

. This entire incident was captured on the 7

- Eleven v ideo

surveillance tape.

Police officers performed a DNA test on the blood found at the scene and

determined it was defendant’s blood. Defendant was arrested and interviewed. A redacted

videotape of defendant’s interview was played for the jury in which he acknowledged

that he had taken the lottery tickets

. At trial, he explained that at the time of the incident

he was broke and addicted to methamphetamine . That evening he had used more

methamphetamine than usual and was unable to stay calm. After about 45 minutes of

walking around the neighborhood, he had thoughts of doing “ something stupid. ” He

admitted telling Balley to get on the ground before taking th e lottery tickets. He also

admitted that he became fixated on getting Bestul ’s keys and engaged in a struggle with

her. He claimed that he forgot about the knife, an d did not think to put it down. His mind

was racing, and he wa s just trying to grab the key s. When he saw blood, he “ freaked out, ”

not knowing whether the blood was hers or his own. He dropped th e knife and ran from

the store. The next morning, when he found the lottery scratchers next to him, he realized

what he had done and just wanted it all to go away. After this incident, he stopped going

anywhere near methamphetamine because it “ freaked him out ” that he was capable of

doing something like that.3

The jury found defendant guilty as charged and found the enhance ment allegations

true. The t rial court found true the allegation that defendant was on probation at the time

of the charged offenses. Defendant was sentenced to an aggregate term of five years in

prison. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

Discussion

Defendant’s sole defens e at trial was that his voluntary intoxication negated the

specific intent necessary to commit robbery and attempted robbery. We find no error in

the relevant jury instructions or closing arguments. Substantial evidence undoubtedly

supports defendant’s con viction of the second degree robbery of Balley and the attempted

robbery of and assault with a deadly weapon on Bestul

. Defendant was adequately represented by counsel throughout the proceedings and

the sentence imposed was in all respects lawful.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error

that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

Disposition

The judgment is affirmed.

_________________________ Pollak, J.

We concur:

_________________________ McGuiness, P. J.

_________________________ Siggins, J.