Filed 7/14/15 P. v. Bryant CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 SEVEN

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

NATHANIEL BRYANT,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B256625

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. NA096675)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Gary J. 

Ferrari, Judge. Affirmed.

Jared G. Coleman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________
2

Nathaniel Bryant was charged in an information with having committed petty theft 

(Pen. Code, § 484, subd. (a))1 on August 26, 2013 with allegations he had suffered three 

prior theft-related convictions within the meaning of section 666. The information 

specially alleged Bryant had committed the theft offense while released from custody on 

bail under section 12022.1, had suffered one prior serious or violent felony conviction 

within the meaning of the three strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(j), 1170.12, subds. (a)-

(d)) and had previously served 10 separate prison terms for felonies (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). 

Bryant pleaded not guilty and denied the special allegations. 

Prior to trial, the trial court heard and granted the People’s motions to impeach 

Bryant with his prior theft-related convictions if he elected to testify and to introduce a 

prior uncharged offense under section 1101, subdivision (b) to show Bryant’s intent and 

common design or plan to commit the charged theft offense. 

According to the evidence presented at trial, on the afternoon of August 26, 2013, 

Bryant entered a Target store in Long Beach, tore open a package containing a Bluetooth 

headset, placed it on his head and left the store without paying for it. Target store 

employees confronted Bryant outside the store and, after a brief struggle, detained him 

until the police arrived. Initially, Bryant admitted to Target employees he had stolen the 

headset, but then claimed it belonged to him. The stolen headset was recovered from 

Bryant.

On the morning of June 22, 2013, Bryant entered a Target store in Compton, tore 

open a package containing a Bluetooth headset and put it in his pocket. A store employee 

notified the police who later detained Bryant. The stolen headset was found in Bryant’s 

pocket. The jury found Bryant guilty of petty theft. Bryant’s post-conviction motion to 

replace his appointed counsel was denied. (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.)

At sentencing, the trial court imposed an aggregate state prison term of 13 years, 

consisting of six years (double the upper three-term year under the three strikes law) plus 

two years for the out-on-bail enhancement, plus five one-year terms for the prison term 

 

1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated.
3

enhancements. The court dismissed the remaining prior prison term enhancements in the 

interests of justice (§ 1385).

On January 6, 2015, the trial court granted Bryant’s petition to reduce the 

conviction to a misdemeanor and resentenced him to a term of 365 days in any state 

facility.2

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent Bryant on appeal. After examination of the 

record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues. On March 16, 2015, we advised 

Bryant he had 30 days in which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished 

us to consider. We have received no response.

We have examined the record and are satisfied Bryant’s attorney on appeal has 

fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and there are no arguable issues. (See 

Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People 

v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

 

2 On November 4, 2014, California voters approved Proposition 47, the “Safe 

Neighborhoods and Schools Act.” In sum, Proposition 47: (1) requires a misdemeanor 

sentence instead of a felony sentence for certain drug possession offenses; (2) requires a 

misdemeanor sentence instead of a felony sentence for the crimes of petty theft, receiving 

stolen property, and forging/writing bad checks, when the amount involved is $950 or 

less; (3) allows a felony sentence (excluding a defendant from a misdemeanor sentence) 

for the crimes specified above if a defendant has prior conviction listed under section 

667, subdivision (e)(2)(C)(iv), or a prior conviction for an offense requiring sex offender 

registration under section 290; and (4) requires resentencing for defendants serving 

felony sentences for the crimes specified above unless the trial court finds an 

unreasonable public safety risk. (Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 4, 2014) 

Official Title and Summary, pp. 34, 70; see e.g., §§ 459.5, subd. (a), 473, subd. (b), 476a, 

subd. (b), 490.2, subds. (a), (b), 496, subd. (a), 666, subds. (a), (b), Health & Saf. Code, 

§§ 11357, subds. (a), (b).) The initiative became effective on November 5, 2014. (Cal. 

Const., art. II, § 10, subd. (a).)
4

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

ZELON, J.

We concur:

PERLUSS, P. J.

STROBEL, J.

 



Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to 

article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.