1

Filed 4/21/21 P. v. Taylor CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
DEON JEFFERSON TAYLOR

, Defendant and Appellant. A1 56272

( San Mateo County Super

. Ct. No.
1 7NF012699 B)

Defendant Deon Jefferson Taylor appeals from a judgment after a jury

convicted him of three counts of robbery

. His court

- appointed counsel has
filed a brief raising no issues and seeking our independent review of the
record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ). The brief
includes counsel’s declaration stating that he informed defendant of his

i ntent to file a Wende brief on his behalf

, and that he apprised defendant of
his right to file a supplemental brief

. Counsel’s proof of service accompanying

the brief, which is signed under penalty of perjury, shows counsel served
defendant by mail with a copy of the brief on January 13, 2021 , the same day

the brief was filed

. Se veral months have now elapsed, and d efendant has not

file d a supplemental brief

. Having independently revi ewed the record, we2

conclude there are no reasonably arguable issues requiring further review.

We affirm the judgment

.

F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL B ACKGROUND

In 2018 , t he People charged d efendant and co

- defendant Daniel

Vela z quez

- Cordero by amended informatio n with four counts of second degree
robbery ( Pen. Code, § 212.5, subd. (c) 1 ) . The People also charged the two with

several counts of false imprisonment (§ 236)

. T he People alleged Vela z quez

Cordero personally us ed a firearm , and further alleged against defendant

that a principal was armed with a firearm (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1))

. The People
also alleged as to all counts that defendant had two prior convictions under

the Three Strikes Law , and as to the robbery counts that defendant had prior

convictions pursuant to section 667 , subdivision (a)(1)

. These charges stemmed from an armed bank robbery that occurred on
September 15, 2016 in Daly City

. The evidence at trial showed that

defenda nt and Vela z quez

- Corder o , who was armed with a gun

, entered the

bank

, ordered everyone to get down on the ground, then defendant took
money from bank tellers while Vela z quez

- Cordero took a purse from a

customer

. The prosecution’s theory and evidence also s howed that two

additional men participated in the robbery as a lookout and a getaway driver.
A jury convicted defendant of three robbery counts

, and found true the

attendant section 12022

, subdivision (a)(1) enhancements alleged against

defendant

, but acquitted him of the remaining charges

. T he trial court found
the prior conviction allegations true , but granted defendant’s motion to strike
one of his strike priors

. I n January 2019 , the c ourt sentenced defendant to a
total of 10 years for the robbery counts. The court stayed sentencing for the

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated.3

section 12022, subdivision (a)(1)

, enhancements, but imposed one five

- year

enhancement under section 667, subdivision (a)(1)

. The court imposed

$1 0,171 in restitution to the bank , stayed imposition of other victim
restitution, and “waived” fines and fees due to defendant’s “financial

situation.”

D ISCUSSION

Defendant’s a ppellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Wende

, supra , 25 Cal.3d 436

, asking this court to independently review the record to

determine whether it reveals “any arguable sentencing issues or other post

plea issues

. ” As mentioned, counsel’s declaration indicates he notified

defendant a Wende brief would be filed and informed defendant of his right to
file a supplemental brief. Counsel’s proof of service accompanying the brief

, which is made under penalty of perjury, shows appellate counsel served

defendant by mail with a copy of the brief on January 13, 2021. Several
months have elapsed

, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. We
have independently examined the entire record and have found no reasonably
arguable appellate issue

. ( People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124 .)

D ISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.4 _________________________ Fujisaki, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________ Petrou, J.

_________________________ Jackson, J.

A156272