Filed 12/18/13 P. v. Kelly CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
EDWIN KELLY,
Defendant and Appellant. B249262
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA124642)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Supe rior Court of Los Angeles County. Kelvin D. Filer, Judge. Affirmed.

Craig C. Kling, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * * * * * * * * *2 Defendant and appellant Edwin Kelly a ppeals from the judgment of conviction following a jury trial. We affirm. On October 31, 2012, defe ndant was charged with one count of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). 1 It was also specially allege d defendant had suffered several prior convictions and served prior prison te rms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). The information alleged that on Augu st 24, 2012, defendant and his
codefendant Saladin Minor 2 unlawfully took, by force a nd fear, personal property from victim B.R. At his arraignmen t, defendant pled not guilty. The case proceeded to a jury trial in May 2013. Duri ng the trial, the victim, B.R.,
attested to the facts and circumstances of the incident in which defendant, codefendant Minor, and one other unidentifie d male, rear-ended the victim’s car. B.R. identified defendant in court, and explained that after he got out from the front passenger seat while she was trying to exchange information w ith Minor (who was the driver), defendant walked up to her car and grabbed her purse out of the vehicle. She described him as wearing a blue plaid shirt. She said defend ant and Minor then ran back to their car and got in. The third male ran o ff and did not go back to the ca r. Both Minor and defendant tried to hit the victim as she attempted to retrieve her purse from their vehicle. Minor attempted to drive off while B.R. was still reaching into their ca r, and crashed into a semi-truck, injuring B.R. Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) patrol officer Ryan Lozano and his partner, officer Arthur Gonzalez, testified to witnessing a portion of the incident. They came upon the scene, witnessed the struggle between B.R., Minor and defendant, the

1 All further undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.

2 Codefendant Minor is not a party to this appeal.3 crash with the semi-truck, and then saw defenda nt get out of the front passenger seat and attempt to flee.
LAPD officer Gilberto Tova lin also testified to resp onding to the scene of the incident and apprehending defendant, who had been wearing a blue shirt and black shorts. Defendant was located hiding nearby, with his shirt on the ground next to him. He was placed under arre st at that time. Erik Rivera, the driver of the semi-tru ck, testified during the trial and identified defendant as a participan t in the robbery. Video from a nearby store’s security came ra was played for the jury, as were segments of video from the responding officers’ dashboard cameras. Defense counsel argued to the jury, bo th in opening statem ent and in closing argument, that the evidence sh owed defendant was not the one who took the purse out of the car, but rather, it was the third male (w earing a white T-shirt and black shorts) who did so and eluded capture by the police. Defe ndant testified in his own defense that he did not get out of the vehicle after the collis ion and did not take B. R.’s purse from her
car. He said he did not know that a robbery was being plan ned, but that he had simply
asked codefendant Minor for a ride to a frie nd’s home, and that he attempted to flee because he panicked and fear ed going back to jail. De fense counsel explained the defense version that the video supported de fendant’s testimony he had not gotten out of
the vehicle after the accident. The jury found defendant guilty of second degree robbery. Defendant waived his right to a jury trial on his prior convicti ons. At the sentencing hearing, defendant admitted two prior pris on term convictions. The court sentenced defendant to a state prison term of six years, cons isting of the upper term of fi ve years on the robbery count, plus one year for one prior prison term. Th e court exercised its discretion under section 1385 to strike the other prison term prior. Various fines and fees were imposed, and
defendant was awarded 610 da ys of precustody credits.4 Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal . We appointed appellate counsel to represent defendant. Appellate co unsel 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 lette r to defendant explaining his
evaluation of the record. Counsel further de clared he advised defendant of his right,
under Wende , to submit a supplemental br ief within 30 days. On November 14, 2013, de fendant submitted a two-page handwritten letter brief. Defendant does not identify any specific claim of error. Defendant only asserts his belief
that an enhanced version of th e security videotape of the incident would show that he did not take the victim’s purse out of her car. De fendant contends that if an enhanced version was obtained, the clothes worn by the indivi dual taking the purse could be better seen and it would reveal that it was not defendant, wh o was wearing a blue plaid shirt on the day of the incident, and not a white T- shirt as reflected in the video. The jury was provided the videotapes to view in the ju ry room during deliberations. The jury was able to hear and assess the precise claim defendant now urges would be shown by an en hanced version of the vide otape, specifically that defendant was not a participant in the robbery of B.R. That claim was rejected by the jury. Defendant has not shown a request to submit an enhanced version of the videotape evidence (assuming that could be accomplis hed) was made and denied, or whether admission of such evidence would reasonably result in a more favorable outcome to defendant. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 13.)
We have examined the entire record and ar e satisfied that appo inted counsel fully complied with his responsibilities in assessing whether or not any colorable appellate
issues exist. We conclude there are no arguable appellate issues. ( People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; Wende , supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.)5 DISPOSITION The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

GRIMES, J.

We concur:

BIGELOW, P. J.

RUBIN, J.