Filed 2/25/16 P. v. Stowe CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

KEVIN STOWE,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B263091

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. BA428775)

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

Katherine Mader, Judge. Affirmed.

David R. Geifinger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * * * * * * * * *
2

Defendant Kevin Stowe was charged by information with one count of second 

degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), with prior strike, serious violent felony, and prison 

term allegations (§§ 1170, 1170, subd. (h), 667.5, subd. (b), 667, subd. (a)(1), 1170.12). 

Before trial, defendant’s counsel declared a doubt as to his competence. Defendant was 

examined by a psychiatrist, and the court concluded that defendant was competent to 

stand trial. Defendant voluntarily absented himself from trial. 

Defendant was convicted by jury of robbery, and a jury found his prior conviction 

and prison term allegations to be true. The trial court denied defendant’s Romero1

motion to dismiss his strike conviction. Defendant was sentenced to the midterm of three

years for the robbery, which was doubled because of his strike prior, as well as a 

consecutive five years for his serious felony prior conviction. Defendant was also 

sentenced to two 1-year terms for his prison priors, which the trial court struck. 

Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. 

We appointed appellate counsel to represent defendant. Appointed counsel filed a 

brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) in which no issues were 

raised. The brief included a declaration from counsel that he reviewed the record and 

sent a letter to defendant explaining his evaluation of the record. Counsel further 

declared that he advised defendant of his right, under Wende, to submit a supplemental 

brief. Defendant did not file any supplemental brief with this court. 

The following evidence was adduced at trial: On August 27, 2014, Joselito Abo 

was at a bus stop in downtown Los Angeles when defendant put his hand in Mr. Abo’s 

pocket and tried to take cash and other possessions from Mr. Abo. Mr. Abo struggled to 

retain his possessions. Defendant slammed him into a bus pole, and took the items from

Mr. Abo’s pocket. As defendant walked away, a man confronted defendant, and 

defendant dropped some of Mr. Abo’s possessions. Mr. Abo called 911, defendant was 

detained, and Mr. Abo identified defendant in a field show up. 

 

1

 People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero).
3

We have examined the entire record, consisting of two volumes of a clerk’s 

transcript, the exhibits to counsel’s request to augment the record on appeal, and three

volumes of a reporter’s transcript, and are satisfied that appointed counsel fully complied 

with his responsibilities and that no arguable appellate issues exist. (People v. Kelly

(2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) 

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

GRIMES, J.

WE CONCUR:

BIGELOW, P. J.

RUBIN, J.