1

Filed 12/13/21 P. v. Hockaday CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Butte & Sacramento)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DAMIAN MARQUIS HOCKADAY,

Defendant and Appellant.

C092911

(Butte County Super. Ct. No. 

19CF06316

Sacramento County Super. Ct. 

No. 19FE002575)

Appointed counsel for defendant Damian Marquis Hockaday has filed an opening 

brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and 

determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 

Cal.3d 436.) After examining the record, we find no arguable error that would result in 

an outcome more favorable to defendant and affirm the judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of 

the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 123-124.)
2

Defendant and another man went to a Rite Aid pharmacy, jumped over the 

counter, and demanded the employees give them prescription medications. Defendant 

demanded promethazine and the other man demanded hydrocodone and oxycontin. After 

getting the drugs, defendant demanded more promethazine, and when the employee told 

defendant there was no more, defendant pushed the employee, causing the employee to 

fall and hit a trash can. The two men then jumped back over the counter and ran out the 

emergency door exit. The employees gave a detailed description of defendant, including 

a distinctive facial tattoo and hairstyle. One of the employees also noted he had placed 

the promethazine in defendant’s bag. Witnesses saw the men leave the pharmacy and 

provided law enforcement with information as to the license plate of the car they left the 

scene in. Ultimately, the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office Gang Unit identified 

defendant as one of the men, based on his tattoos and hairstyle. The investigating officer 

also identified defendant as one of the men involved in the robbery based on surveillance 

videos. The men stole a total of over $12,000 of medication, including over 3,000 

promethazine tablets. 

The People filed a felony complaint charging defendant with second degree 

robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.)

1

 The complaint further alleged a prior serious felony 

conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subd. (d), 1170.12, 

subd. (b)), a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), and a criminal street gang 

enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(c)). At the time the complaint was filed, defendant 

was in custody in Sacramento County in a separate case, case No. 19FE002575. 

1

 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3

Defendant pled guilty to second degree robbery and admitted a prior strike 

conviction. On the People’s motion, the trial court dismissed the remaining allegations 

with a Harvey2 waiver. 

The trial court received and considered the probation report, and the argument of 

the parties. The court denied probation and found the circumstances in aggravation 

outweighed the circumstances in mitigation. The trial court sentenced defendant to the 

upper term of five years, doubled pursuant to the prior strike. In addition, the trial court 

sentenced defendant to a consecutive term of one year four months for being a felon in 

possession of a firearm with a prior strike conviction in case No. 19FE002575. The court 

imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) and a corresponding $300 

mandatory supervision revocation fine, suspended pending revocation of mandatory 

supervision (§ 1202.45, subd. (b)). The court also imposed a $40 court operations fee (§ 

1465.8), a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), a $39 theft fine (§ 

1202.5), and direct victim restitution in the amount of $12,144.10. The court granted 

defendant 357 days of presentence custody credits and an additional 294 days of 

presentence custody credit in case No. 19FE02575. Appellate counsel filed a letter with 

the trial court and the trial court subsequently amended the abstract of judgment to reflect 

an additional four days of presentence custody credit in case No. 19CF06316.3 

Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.

II. DISCUSSION

Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and 

asks us to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, 

supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel advised defendant of the right to file a supplemental brief 

2

 People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.

3

 Neither the letter itself nor the record of the hearing is contained in our record on 

appeal.
4

within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed 

and we have received no such communication from defendant.

We have undertaken an examination of the entire record and find no arguable error 

that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

III. DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

/S/

 

RENNER, J.

We concur:

/S/

 

BLEASE, Acting P. J.

/S/

 

HULL, J.