Filed 11/24/20 P. v. Phillips CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

WILLIAM ROSS PHILLIPS, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B304716

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. SA099236)

THE COURT:

In 2018, defendant and appellant William Ross 

Phillips, Jr., entered a bank, brandished a firearm, and 

demanded and obtained money from a teller, before fleeing. He 

was charged with four counts of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) with 

the personal use of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (b)). 

Seven prior convictions for bank robbery were alleged as prior 

serious felony convictions and “strikes.” (Pen. Code, §§ 667, 

1170.12.) 
2

Defendant waived his preliminary hearing and trial rights, 

pled no contest to one of the charges, and admitted one prior 

strike and three prior serious felony convictions. He was 

sentenced to the upper term of five years on the charge, doubled 

to 10 years because of the prior strike. The sentence was 

enhanced by 15 years for the prior serious felony convictions. 

Defendant filed a notice of appeal from the sentencing 

order. 

Counsel was appointed to represent defendant in 

connection with this appeal. After examination of the record, 

counsel filed an “Opening Brief” in which no arguable issues were 

raised. On September 1, 2020, appointed counsel advised 

defendant of his opportunity to file a supplemental brief.

On September 15, 2020, defendant submitted a 

supplemental brief in which he asks that his “5 year prior [be] 

stricken. Nothing else.” He seems to claim that his trial counsel 

should have realized that he should not have admitted this prior

because the number associated with that prior was actually a 

federal inmate number, not a case number. He further asserts

that he has written four letters to his appointed appellate 

counsel, but, based upon the arguments in the opening brief, it 

appears that counsel never received them. 

We have examined the entire record and we are satisfied 

that defendant’s appellate counsel has fully complied with his

responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. 

Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441 (Wende).) We are not convinced 

by the argument raised in defendant’s supplemental brief. While 

there may have been some sort of issue with the case number, 

defendant does not dispute the fact that he was convicted of bank 

robbery. Thus, we decline defendant’s unfounded request that 
3

appointed counsel be ordered to file a different supplemental 

brief or that a new appellate attorney be appointed to represent 

him. 

Defendant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the 

Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate 

and effective appellate review of the judgment and sentence 

entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 

U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123–124.)

The trial court’s order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

____________________________________________________________

ASHMANN-GERST, J. LUI, P. J. CHAVEZ, J.