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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or 

ordered 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.

 A156272

 (San Mateo County

 Super. Ct. No.

 17NF012699B)

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 

intent 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. Several months have now elapsed, and defendant has not 

filed a supplemental brief. Having independently reviewed the record, we 
2

conclude there are no reasonably arguable issues requiring further review. 

We affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 2018, the People charged defendant and co-defendant Daniel 

Velazquez-Cordero by amended information 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). The People alleged VelazquezCordero personally used 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

defendant and Velazquez-Cordero, 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 Velazquez-Cordero took a purse from a 

customer. The prosecution’s theory and evidence also showed 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. The trial court found 

the prior conviction allegations true, but granted defendant’s motion to strike 

one of his strike priors. In January 2019, the court 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 

$10,171 in restitution to the bank, stayed imposition of other victim 

restitution, and “waived” fines and fees due to defendant’s “financial 

situation.”

DISCUSSION

Defendant’s appellate 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 postplea 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.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.
4

_________________________

Fujisaki, Acting P.J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________

Petrou, J.

_________________________

Jackson, J.

A156272