People v. Roberson CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN328734
- Trial judge
- Blaine Bowman
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Cynthia Aaron, Patricia D. Benke
Analysis
The trial court convicted Roberson of attempted robbery, denied his motion to strike a prior serious felony conviction, and sentenced him to nine years. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no reasonably arguable issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of motion to strike prior serious felony conviction“Whether the trial court erred in denying Roberson's motion to strike the serious/violent felony (strike) prior?” | unclear | not reached | unsure The appellate court identified this as a possible issue but determined it was not reasonably arguable, thereby declining to conduct a substantive legal analysis of the trial court's ruling under the applicable standard of review. |
Sufficiency of evidence for conviction“Whether there was sufficient evidence to support Roberson's conviction?” | unclear | not reached | unsure The court listed this as a potential issue but concluded it was not reasonably arguable, thus affirming the conviction without a detailed discussion of the evidence standard. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying issues and the court to independently review the record for error when counsel finds no arguable issues.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from an appeal when no arguable issues exist, requiring a court review of the record.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the established Wende/Anders protocol for handling appeals where counsel identifies no arguable issues. However, it provides no substantive legal analysis for the specific issues raised, relying solely on the court's independent review to affirm the judgment.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual disposition unusual dispositionA jury convicted Roberson of attempted robbery, the trial court found a serious felony prior, a strike prior and a prison prior true, denied his motion to strike the strike prior, struck the prison prior, and imposed a nine-year determinate term. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, Roberson filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Sufficiency of the evidence to support the attempted robbery conviction (identified by counsel as a possible but not arguable issue)“Whether there was sufficient evidence to support Roberson's conviction?” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion does not articulate the substantial evidence standard, but the facts recited (demand note to teller, teller watching defendant discard the note, detention within 10-15 minutes, identification after reviewing surveillance video) readily support the elements of attempted robbery. Under Wende the court need only confirm no arguable issue exists, and nothing in the recited record suggests one. |
Denial of the motion to strike the strike prior (Romero motion)“The trial court denied Roberson's motion to strike the "strike" prior.” | unclear | correct | unsure The opinion states no standard and gives no detail about the trial court's reasons or the nature of the prior, so the Romero ruling cannot be independently evaluated from the opinion. Denial of a motion to strike a prior is reviewed for abuse of discretion and is rarely reversible; the court's conclusion that no arguable issue exists is plausible, especially given the court exercised leniency by striking the prison prior, but the opinion does not supply enough to confirm it. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for error before affirming.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous may so advise the court and identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the Wende procedure correctly: it recites the facts and procedural history, lists the issues counsel identified under Anders, notes the defendant declined to file a supplemental brief, and states the court reviewed the entire record. It does not state the standards of review or discuss the Romero ruling in any detail, which is permissible in a Wende disposition but leaves the reasoning on the strike-prior issue unexplained.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
Filed 3/18/15 P. v. Roberson CA4/1 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 ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D066737
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN328734)
DAMIEN DIONTAY ROBERSON,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Blaine Bowman, Judge. Affirmed.
Andrea S. Bitar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted Damien Diontay Roberson of attempted robbery (Pen. Code,1 §§ 211 & 664). The trial court found that Roberson had suffered a serious felony prior conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), a strike prior (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and a three-year prison prior (§ 667.5, subd. (a)) to be true.
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. The trial court denied Roberson's motion to strike the "strike" prior. The court did strike the prison prior and sentenced Roberson to a total determinate term of nine years.
Roberson filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) indicating she has been unable to identify any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal.
Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende.
We offered Roberson the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal but he has not responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On February 10, 2014, an African-American male, wearing headphones, sunglasses and carrying a Coke can approached a teller at the Valley Center branch of the Bank of America. The man handed the teller a note stating it was a robbery and demanding money. As the teller started to open the cash drawer, the man picked up the note and walked away.
The teller went outside and watched the man throw the note under a recycling bin and walk away. Police were called and arrived at the scene.
The teller gave police a description of the suspect. Within 10 to 15 minutes police reported they had a possible suspect. The teller was taken to the location where the suspect was detained but could not identify him as the perpetrator at that point.
The teller then returned to the bank and reviewed the video of the attempted robbery. At that point he realized the person detained by police, Roberson, was actually 2 the suspect. The teller then recognized Roberson as the person who attempted to rob the bank.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted above, appellate counsel has indicated she is unable to identify any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. She has asked this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, counsel has identified the following possible, but not arguable issues:
1. Whether there was sufficient evidence to support Roberson's conviction?
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying Roberson's motion to strike the serious/violent felony (strike) prior?
We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.
We have not identified any reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Roberson has been represented by competent counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
AARON, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12