Filed 1/29/15 P. v. Morales CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
ARTHUR MORALES,
Defendant and Appellant. B256124
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA131828)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, Raul A. Sahagun, Judge. Affirmed. Hancock and Spears, Alan E. Sp ears for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.2 INTRODUCTION

Defendant and appellant Arthur Mora les (defendant) was convicted of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211 1 ). On appeal, appointed counsel for defendant filed an opening brief in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 requesting that this court conduct an independent review of the record to determ ine if there are any
issues which if resolved in defendant’s favor would require reversal or modification of the judgment or appealable order. On Octobe r 3, 2014, we gave notice to defendant that his counsel had failed to find any arguable issu es and that defendant had 30 days within which to submit by brief or letter any grounds of appeal, contentions, or arguments he
wished this court to consider. Defendant filed a letter brief 2 in which he contends that
there was not substantial evid ence in support of his conviction, and his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel. We have review ed the record and affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

1. Prosecution Evidence Hong Truong was the only witness who testif ied at trial. At about 9:00 a.m. on November 16, 2012, a man wearing a hooded sweater and holding a shotgun, walked into Truong’s computer repair store. The man was alone.

1 All statutory citations are to th e Penal Code unless otherwise noted.

2 Although defendant’s letter brief was due on November 3, 2014, (30 days from October 3, 2014, was November 2, 2014, a Sunday) he did not file it until January 9, 2015. It was purportedly date d October 26, 2014, however. We treat defendant’s letter brief as timely and consider it in this appeal.3 Pointing the gun at Truong, the man ordere d Truong to go to the back of the shop and lie face down. Truong was fearful and complied. Truong could not see the man’s face clearly because the outside sunlight was bright, and Truong tried not to look at the
man because he was afraid for his life. The man demanded Truong’s wallet and cellphone, and Truong gave them to the man. Truong’s wallet contained a credit card, a social security card, and a ch eck made payable to him in the sum of $20. The man asked for Truong’s banking information, a nd Truong gave it to the man.

The man then walked to the front of the store and began rummaging through items. Truong did not see or hear any other person enter th e store and did not hear any
other voices.

The man then ordered Truong into the re stroom and told him to close the door; Truong complied. Eventually, Truong no longer heard any sound and opened the door. The man was gone. Truong called 911 and iden tified the robber as a “twenty-something” year old Mexican male wearing a gray sweate r. Truong said that the robber held “a gun on [his] head,” and that the gun was a shotg un. Truong was unable to identify defendant in a photographic lineup.

Truong was missing two monitors and two laptops. He found two opened boxes that had been previously un opened; one box contained a DVD burner and the other box contained a keyboard. The pa rties entered into a stipul ation that the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department conclude d defendant’s fingerprint was on one of the opened boxes; his palm print was on the second opened box ; and defendant’s fingerprint was on an
instruction manual belo nging to Truong.

The parties also stipulated that on November 18, 2012, Whittier Police Officer Sergio Lopez responded to a bu rglary alarm at a stereo store. Defendant was arrested. Officer Lopez searched defendant and found on him a wallet containing a check payable to Truong in the sum of $20, which check had been in Tru ong’s wallet prior to Truong handing it to the man during the incident.4 2. Defendant’s Evidence
Defendant did not tes tify or present any evidence in his defense.

B. Procedural Background The District Attorney of Los Angeles County filed an information charging defendant with second degree robbery in violation of secti on 211, a serious and violent felony within the meaning of sections 667.5, subdivision (c ) and 1192.7, subdivision (c). The District Attorney alleged that defenda nt was armed with and personally used a firearm (shotgun) within the m eaning of sections 12022, su bdivision (a)(1) and 12022.53, subdivision (b), causing the offens e to be a serious felony within the meaning of section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(8). Following trial, the jury found defendant guilty of se cond degree robbery and found that the special allegations were true. The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for a term of 12 years, consisting of the low term of two years on the substantive offense, and a consecutive term of 10 years pursuant to the gun use enhancement under section 12022.53, subdivision (b). The trial court stayed imposition of sentence for the gun possession enhancement under section 12 022, subdivision (a)(1). The trial court awarded defendant custody cr edit, and ordered him to pa y various fees, fines and penalties. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.5 DISCUSSION

A. Substantial Evidence
Defendant contends that there was not su bstantial evidence in support of his conviction. We disagree.

1. Standard of Review “‘When considering a challenge to the su fficiency of the evid ence to support a conviction, we review the entir e record in the light most fa vorable to the judgment to
determine whether it contains substantial evid ence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ( People v. Lindberg (2008) 45 Cal.4th 1, 27 [82 Cal.Rptr.3d 323, 190 P.3d 664].) . . . In so doing, a reviewing court ‘presumes in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.’ ( People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1 053 [99 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 5 P.3d 68].)” ( People v. Edwards (2013) 57 Cal.4th 658, 715.)
“A reversal for insufficient evidence ‘i s unwarranted unless it appears “that upon no hypothesis whatever is th ere sufficient substantial evid ence to support”’ the jury’s verdict. [Citation.]” ( People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357.) In determining whether substantial evidence supports a co nviction, “we do not reweigh the evidence,
resolve conflicts in the evidence, draw inferences contrary to the verdict, or reevaluate the credibility of witnesses.” ( People v. Little (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 766, 771, citing People v. Jones (1990) 51 Cal.3d 294, 314.) We review a claim th at insufficient evidence supports an enhancemen t using the same standard that we apply to a conviction. ( People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 806.)

2. Analysis Defendant argues that there was not s ubstantial evidence in support of his
conviction because he “was ne ver identified” as the man wh o robbed Truong. Although6 Truong did not identify defenda nt as the person who robbed him, two days after the incident, Officer Lopez searched defendant and found on him a wallet containing a check made out to Truong; the same check which ha d been in Truong’s wallet prior to handing
it to the man who robbed him. Defendant’s fi nger and palm prints we re also found on the items in Truong’s store, including two boxes that were not open ed until the man who robbed Truong app eared in Truong’s store. The jury reasonably could find that defendant was the person who robbed Truong. Defendant also argues that there was no evidence that the man who robbed Truong used a gun, other than the te stimony of Truong that a gun wa s used during the robbery. However, “The testimony of one witness is suffi cient to prove any fact. (Evid. Code, §

411.)” ( People v. Miranda (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1403 , 1418.) Truong not only repeatedly testified that a gun was used during the robbery, when he called 911 immediately after the incident , he reported it to the police. There was substantial evidence in support of de fendant’s conviction.

B. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Defendant contends that his trial counsel provided in effective assistance of counsel, but he does not state what counsel di d or did not do that constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, other than to state, “There was never any gun used. [Truong’s] story changed lots of time [ sic ] from pretrial and another ar gument would be Ineffective [ sic ] counsel.”
Defendant does not state when or in wh at regard Truong’s “story” changed “from pretrial.” “‘Generally, a conviction will not be reversed based on a claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel unless the defendant establishes both of the followi ng: (1) that counsel’s representation fell below an ob jective standard of reasonableness; and (2) that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, a
determination more favorable to defendant would have re sulted. [Citations.]’” ( People
v. Foster (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 379, 383.) If th e defendant fails to make a sufficient7 showing either of deficient performance or prejudice, the ineffective assistance claim fails. ( Ibid .) Assuming defendant contends Truong’s tr ial testimony that a gun was used in the robbery differed from his preliminary hearin g testimony, and his counsel should have impeached Truong with his inc onsistent testimony, this cont ention is without merit. Consistent with his trial testimony, Truong repeatedly testified during the preliminary hearing that a gun was used the robbery. Defendant’s trial couns el did not provide
defendant with ineffectiv e assistance of counsel.
“When a claim of ineffective assistance is made on direct appeal, and the record
does not show the reason for counsel’s chal lenged actions or omissions, the conviction
must be affirmed unless there could be no satisfactory explanation. [Citation.]” ( People
v. Anderson (2001) 25 Cal.4th 543, 569.) “A claim of ineffective assi stance in such a case is more appropriately decided in a habeas corpus proceeding.” ( People v. Mendoza
Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 266-267.) Even if defendant’s counsel could have impeached Truong with inconsiste nt testimony, the record on appeal does not reveal why
counsel did not do so. Accord ingly, any claim of ineffectiv e assistance with respect to
the claimed deficiencies is better suited to a petition for writ of habeas corpus. ( People v.
Anderson
, supra , 25 Cal.4th at p. 598; People v. Mendoza Tello
, supra , 15 Cal.4th at p. 267.)

C. Review In addition to reviewing and addressing the matters ra ised in defendant’s letter brief, we have made an independent examinati on of the entire record to determine if there are any other arguable issues on appeal. Based on that review , we have determined that there are no other arguable issu es on appeal. We are therefor e satisfied that defendant’s counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities under People v. Wende
, supra , 25
Cal.3d 436.8 DISPOSITION

We affirm the judgment.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

MOSK, J.

We concur:

TURNER, P. J.

KRIEGLER, J.