1

Filed 12/30/20 P. v. Davis CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JEROME MARKEL DAVIS,

 Defendant and Appellant.

 A158499

 (San Mateo County Super.

 Ct. No. NF439837A)

Appellant Jerome Markel Davis (Appellant) appeals from a judgment 

following his no contest plea to a charge of robbery (Pen. Code, § 212.5, subd.

(c)).1 Appellant’s counsel has raised no issue on appeal and asks this court 

for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any 

arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We have reviewed the record, find no arguable issues, 

and affirm.

BACKGROUND

On August 13, 2019, an amended felony information was filed charging 

Appellant with robbery (§ 212.5, subd. (c)) and attempted robbery (§§ 212.5, 

subd. (c), 664). Both counts alleged Appellant personally used a firearm 

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2

during the commission of the offenses (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)) and Appellant 

was ineligible for probation (§ 1203, subd. (e)(1)). The charges were based on 

an April 2015 robbery at a restaurant in South San Francisco.

Among other things, Appellant moved before trial to exclude prior 

convictions, to exclude fingerprint evidence, to dismiss for delay in 

prosecution, and to dismiss because evidence was not preserved. The trial 

court denied those motions in whole or in part. The trial court granted the 

prosecution’s motion to amend the information to change the enhancements 

on the two counts from section 12022.5, subdivision (a) to section 12022.53, 

subdivision (b).

On August 14, 2019, Appellant pled no contest to the robbery charge. 

The parties stipulated to a two-year prison term to be served concurrently

with the sentence in Sacramento County case number 15F02816. Appellant 

was sentenced accordingly.

Appellant filed a notice of appeal and sought a certificate of probable 

cause based on the granting of the prosecution’s motion to amend the 

information and the four pre-trial motions referenced above. The trial court 

granted the request for a certificate of probable cause.

DISCUSSION

We have reviewed the entire record and have found no arguable 

appellate issues. Following a period of self-representation properly approved 

by the trial court, Appellant was adequately represented by legal counsel.

The trial court did not err in granting the prosecution’s August 2019 

motion to amend the information or in denying Appellant’s pre-trial motions, 

including those specified in the request for a certificate of probable cause. 

For example, the court properly denied Appellant’s motion to dismiss for 

failure to preserve evidence (video of the robbery and a 9-1-1 call log) because 
3

Appellant failed to show the evidence had “exculpatory value that was 

apparent” before it was destroyed. (People v. Chism (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1266, 

1300; see also California v. Trombetta (1984) 467 U.S. 479.)

Appellant completed a plea form that described the constitutional 

rights he was waiving by entering a no contest plea, the trial court went over 

those rights with Appellant, and the court found Appellant freely and 

intelligently waived those rights. Defense counsel stipulated there was a 

factual basis for the plea.

The trial court’s sentence was consistent with the plea agreement. The 

fines and fees imposed by the court were proper.

Appellate counsel advised Appellant of his right to file a supplemental 

brief to bring to this court’s attention any issue he believes deserves review. 

(See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) Appellant did not file a 

supplemental brief. There are no legal issues that require further briefing.

DISPOSITION

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
4

SIMONS, Acting P.J.

We concur.

BURNS, J.

REARDON, J.*

(A158499)

* Judge of the Alameda County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice 

pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.