Mireles

I agree that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence of Dennis Bott's prior convictions, admitting evidence of Mireles's prior convictions, or allowing Clifton Roth to testify as a rebuttal witness. Because I concur that the court did not *250 abuse its discretion in those matters, I also concur that those alleged errors did not have the cumulative effect of depriving Mireles of due process.

Nevertheless, I believe People v. Williams (2013) 57 Cal.4th 776 , 161 Cal.Rptr.3d 81 , 305 P.3d 1241 ( Williams ) controls the outcome here, and I would reverse. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

*914 The majority opinion relies on People v. Davis (1998) 19 Cal.4th 301 , 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 295 , 965 P.2d 1165 ( Davis ) and attempts to distinguish Williams to find that the basis of Mireles's crime was larceny rather than theft by false pretenses and that, therefore, his conviction for robbery is supported by People v. Estes (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 23 , 194 Cal.Rptr. 909 .

Davis was not a robbery case. Our Supreme Court did not decide whether Davis could have been convicted of robbery for his larceny of a shirt had a scuffle ensued when he attempted to leave Mervyn's…

*240 Belinda Reyes (Reyes), a Home Depot asset protection specialist, and Clifton *906 Roth (Roth), a sales associate, watched Kevin Mireles (Mireles) place a universal product code (UPC) sticker for a $4.47 bottle of roach killer on a $39.98 bottle of weed killer, pay $4.47 at a self-checkout station for the $39.98 product, and walk out of the store. Reyes and Roth followed Mireles outside, where Reyes confronted Mireles and a scuffle ensued. Police arrested Mireles; the People charged him with, and a jury convicted him of, second degree robbery under Penal Code section 212.5, subdivision (c), 1 as construed in People v. Estes (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 23 , 194 Cal.Rptr. 909 .

Mireles appeals from his robbery conviction. He contends the trial court improperly excluded evidence of a prosecution witness's prior felony convictions and improperly admitted evidence of Mireles's prior criminal conduct in violation of Evidence Code section 352, the trial court improperly admitted testimony from an undisclosed rebuttal witness contrary to Penal Code section 1054.1, and the cumulative effect of the trial court's errors deprived him of a fair trial. We requested supplemental briefing from the…