CONVICTION UPHELD IN ROBBERIES.

Byline: KAREN MAESHIRO Staff Writer

LANCASTER -- An appellate court has upheld the conviction of a Palmdale man who was sentenced to more than 91 years to life in prison for a string of early-morning takeover-style robberies at Palmdale businesses in 2002 and 2003.

The 2nd District Court of Appeal rejected Jaymar Dodds' claim that the judge erred when he denied Dodd's request in the middle of trial for a delay because his fiancee became ill and couldn't testify that he was with her when one of the robberies occurred.

``(W)hile it may have been within the trial court's broad discretion to grant Dodds' request for a brief continuance, under the circumstances confronting the court at the time it was required to rule, denying the request was neither unreasonable nor arbitrary,'' a three-judge appellate panel said in a 2-1 ruling.

The ruling said it is not reasonably probable a result more favorable to Dodds would have been reached if the continuance had been granted.

Dodds, who was already on parole for robbery, was convicted in November 2004 by a Los Angeles Superior Court jury of attempted murder and robbery in the Jan. 30, 2003, robbery of Carrows Restaurant, where a cook was shot in the chest.

Dodds, also was convicted of robbing a Palmdale Starbucks coffee shop on Jan. 19, 2003, and a 99 Cents Only store on Dec. 18, 2002. He was arrested in March 2003.

On the fourth day of trial testimony, defense witness Andrea Pledger telephoned the office of Dodds' attorney to say she was ``quite ill'' and could not make it to court that morning, the ruling said.

Pledger was at the time Dodds' fiancee and is now his wife. Dodds' attorney told the court that Pledger was an important witness because her testimony would be that Dodds was with her at the time of the Carrows robbery, the ruling said.

Later that day, Dodds' attorney informed the judge that he had talked to a man who answered Pledger's telephone who identified himself as Pledger's cousin and said Peldger had gone to the doctor.

Because Pledger herself had not contacted Dodds' attorney and the information from the cousin was ``just too speculative,'' the court concluded it would not wait any further, found good cause did not exist to continue the trial and ordered the defense to proceed, the ruling said.

In a declaration filed with the appellate court, Pledger states she was treated for ``possible food poisoning'' at Antelope Valley Hospital on that day but was released and would have been available to testify the next day.

``There is no question Pledger's proposed alibi testimony would have been material and not cumulative although ... the facts as to which she would testify could also have been established in substantial part by other witnesses. However, there was absolutely no factual basis to support a conclusion by the trial court that Pledger's testimony could be obtained within a reasonable time since the nature of her purported illness and the prognosis for a rapid recovery, allowing her to testify the following day, were entirely unknown,'' the ruling said.

Dissenting was Associate Justice Laurie Zelon, who wrote that the very brief and sole continuance requested to present a key defense witness -- who would establish an alibi for the most serious charges alleged against the defendant -- should not have been denied.

``The record in this case demonstrates that Dodds had diligently and successfully worked to obtain Pledger's appearance, for she had waited at the court at least one full day to testify already and was ordered back by the court, and there was no indication of dilatory conduct by Dodds. Pledger was apparently the only person other than Dodds who was able to testify to his alibi, making her testimony material, not cumulative, and not susceptible of proof by other means,'' Zelon wrote.