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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. NF439837 A

)

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 re viewed the record, find no arguable issues,

and affirm.

BACKGROUND

O n August 13, 2019, a n amended felony information was filed charging

Appellant with robbery (§ 212.5, subd

. (c) ) and attempted robbery (§§ 212.5,

subd

. (c)

, 664 )

. Both counts alleged A ppellant 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 A ppellant

was in eligible for probation (§ 1203, subd

. (e)(1) )

. The charges were based on

a n April 2015 robbery at a restaurant in South San Franc isco

. 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

. T he trial

court denied th ose 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 se ction 12022.5 , subdivision (a) to section 12022.53

,
subdivision (b)

. On August 14, 2019, A ppellant 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 tri al 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 denie d Appellant’s motion to dismiss for

failure to preserve evidence (video of the robbery and a 9

- 1

- 1 call log) because3

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

apparent” before it was destroyed . ( People v. Chism (2014) 58 Cal.4t h 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 cour t 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.

A ppellate 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. *

(A1 58499 )

* Judge of the Alameda County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution

.