Filed 4/24/14 P. v. Dambra CA4/3 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION THREE 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

KELLY RONALD DAMBRA, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 G048667 

 (Super. Ct. No. 12NF1885) 

 O P I N I O N 

 Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, 

Gary S. Paer, Judge. Affirmed. 

 John L. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant. 

 No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

* * * 
2

INTRODUCTION

Defendant Kelly Ronald Dambra was convicted of two counts of second 

degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)), and admitted he had suffered a 

prior conviction (id., §§ 667, subds. (d) & (e)(1), 1170.12, subds. (b) & (c)(1), & 667, 

subd. (a)(1)). The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of seven years in prison, and 

awarded him 334 days of presentence custody credit. 

Defendant timely appealed from the judgment. Appointed counsel filed a 

brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), setting forth the facts 

of the case and requesting that we review the entire record. Pursuant to Anders v. 

California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), appointed counsel provided a list of potential 

issues to assist us in our independent review. Defendant was granted 30 days to file 

written arguments in his own behalf, but did not do so. 

We have examined the entire record and counsel’s Wende/Anders brief. 

After considering the entire record, we have found no reasonably arguable issue. 

(Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) We therefore affirm. 

BACKGROUND

On June 10, 2012, two Wal-Mart asset protection associates observed Kelly 

Loza placing “high-dollar” items in the top part of her shopping cart, near her purse. One 

of the asset protection associates observed Loza meet with defendant in an aisle of the 

store, show him an item, and have what appeared to be a friendly conversation. After 

defendant left, Loza went to another department. One of the associates saw Loza put the 

items in her purse, grab her purse, and exit the store. 

The asset protection associate followed Loza out of the store. The associate 

cut in front of Loza, showed her badge, and identified herself as a member of the 

Wal-Mart asset protection team. Loza said, “I don’t have anything. I don’t know what 

you’re talking about.” The other asset protection associate, who was a male, also 
3

approached Loza, with his badge in his hand, and identified himself as a Wal-Mart 

employee. Both associates stepped in front of Loza to prevent her from getting away 

with the Wal-Mart merchandise. 

Loza screamed an unidentifiable name and then screamed, “help me.” 

When Loza tried to push past the associates, the female associate grabbed her arm. 

Soon after Loza screamed for help, defendant came toward her. The female 

associate displayed her badge to defendant and said, “calm down, calm down,” and “I 

work here.” Defendant grabbed the male associate from behind and turned him around. 

The associate shook off defendant and displayed his badge. The associate told defendant, 

“I work here at Walmart. I work for Walmart.” Defendant then pushed the male 

associate in the chest with two hands, causing the associate to step back two or three feet. 

Defendant then quickly walked toward Loza and the female associate. 

Defendant pushed the female associate backwards into a wall, and said, “leave her 

alone.” 

The female associate retained her grip on Loza, and pulled the purse off 

Loza’s shoulder. The female associate stepped to the side, dumped all the contents from 

the purse onto the ground, and told defendant, “I’m not robbing this lady.” 

Defendant told Loza to leave and go to the car. Loza reached into the pile 

of merchandise, retrieved her wallet, and walked away. Defendant did not attempt to 

take any of the merchandise, but also walked away. 

Loza got into a red SUV, which was already running. The female asset 

protection associate memorized the license plate number before Loza drove off. 

Defendant did not get into the vehicle with Loza. 

The total retail price of the merchandise in Loza’s purse was $155.20. Also 

inside the purse, the associates found a medical paper with defendant’s name on it. 

In an information, Loza and defendant were each charged with two counts 

of second degree robbery, in violation of Penal Code sections 211 and 212.5, 
4

subdivision (c); a separate count was alleged for the use of force or fear against each of 

the asset protection associates. The information also alleged that defendant had a prior 

conviction for a serious and violent felony within the meaning of Penal Code 

sections 667, subdivisions (d) and (e)(1), and 1170.12, subdivisions (b) and (c)(1), and 

for a serious felony within the meaning of Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1) and 

Penal Code section 1192.7. 

A jury found Loza not guilty of robbery on both counts, but found her 

guilty of the lesser included offenses of petty theft (count 1) and grand theft (count 2). 

The jury found defendant guilty of second degree robbery on both counts. Defendant 

waived his right to a jury trial on the prior conviction and admitted that conviction. 

Defendant’s motion for a new trial was denied. The trial court sentenced 

defendant to a term of seven years in prison: the low term of two years for count 1, a 

concurrent term of two years for count 2, and five years for the Penal Code section 667, 

subdivision (a)(1) prior. For purposes of sentencing, the court struck defendant’s serious 

and violent felony prior. The court also imposed a $240 restitution fine and a $240 

parole revocation fine, which was suspended unless defendant’s parole was revoked; a 

$40 security fee; a $30 criminal conviction assessment fee; and a $10 fine, plus a penalty 

assessment. Defendant was awarded 334 days of presentence custody credit—291 actual 

days, plus 43 good conduct days.

ANALYSIS

We have reviewed the record in accordance with our obligations under 

Wende and Anders, and we find no arguable issues on appeal. Defendant himself has not 

raised any issues for our review. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 120, 124.)1

 

 1

 People v. Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th at page 124, requires that an appellate court 

describe the contentions “personally raised by the defendant and the reasons those 

contentions fail” when a defendant files a supplemental brief in response to his or her 

attorney’s Wende/Anders brief. In this case, defendant did not file a supplemental brief. 

Counsel’s Wende/Anders brief included the following language, “[a]ppellant personally 
5

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. 

 

 FYBEL, J. 

WE CONCUR: 

ARONSON, ACTING P. J. 

IKOLA, J. 

 

requests that the court address the following,” immediately before a list of issues this 

court might want to consider in conducting its independent review. We believe that when 

the People v. Kelly court addressed the manner in which the Courts of Appeal are to 

handle issues personally raised by a defendant, it intended to limit the holding of the case 

to those issues raised in a separate, supplemental brief filed directly by the defendant, not 

those issues that counsel informs the court have particular meaning or significance to the 

defendant.