Filed 5/4/23 P. v. Tucker 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

KEISHA TUCKER,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B324375

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. BA458694)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Ray G. Jurado, Judge. Dismissed.

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________
2

Keisha Tucker appeals from a judgment that sentences her 

to 15 years to life in state prison following her plea of no contest 

to second degree murder. Tucker’s appellate counsel has filed a 

brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). 

Tucker has filed a supplemental letter brief indicating she did not 

wish to pursue her appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal as 

abandoned.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On June 27, 2017, Tucker set several fires at a transitional 

living facility where 17-year-old Elijah Robinson and his older 

brother, Marquise Larrimore, lived. Robinson died in the fire. 

Tucker was charged by information with murder (count 1; Pen. 

Code, 187, subd. (a)) and arson of an inhabited structure (count 

2; § 451, subd. (b)). 

The criminal proceedings against Tucker were twice 

suspended when a doubt was expressed concerning her 

competency to stand trial pursuant to Penal Code section 1368. 

The proceedings were reinstated after Tucker was treated and 

the court found Tucker competent. Tucker ultimately pleaded no 

contest to second degree murder. The trial court sentenced her to 

15 years to life pursuant to the plea agreement reached by the 

parties. Counsel for Tucker timely filed a notice of appeal. 

We appointed counsel to represent Tucker on appeal. Her 

appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, in which no issues were 

raised. The brief included a declaration from counsel that he had 

reviewed the record and sent Tucker a letter advising her that 

such a brief would be filed and she could file a supplemental 

brief. On February 22, 2023, this court also sent defendant a 

letter advising her that a Wende brief had been filed and that she 
3

had 30 days to submit a brief raising any issues she wanted this 

court to consider.

On February 26, 2023, Tucker submitted the following 

letter to the court: “Why am I broke? I did not appeal my case. I 

just [want] my restitution. If I’m say[ing] it right or spelling it 

right. Pleas[e] let me know. I have all these paper from your 

office. I [am] requesting help with the print.” Because Tucker 

has indicated she does not want to pursue her appeal, we dismiss 

the matter as abandoned. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.316(a) 

[“An appellant may abandon the appeal at any time by filing an 

abandonment of the appeal signed by the appellant or the 

appellant's attorney of record.”].)

Nonetheless, we have examined the entire record and are 

satisfied that Tucker’s attorney fully complied with his 

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

Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.)

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

RUBIN, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

MOOR, J.

KIM, J.