Court Opinion

ID: 9554338
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-08 18:04:51.181325+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:33:38.084412
License: Public Domain

Filed 8/8/23 P. v. Epps CA4/2
                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                   FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION TWO

 THE PEOPLE,

          Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      E081023

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. FVI22003775)

 ERICKA CHAUNTELLE EPPS,                                                 OPINION

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Debra Harris,

Judge. Affirmed.

         Leslie Ann Rose, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

         Ericka Chauntelle Epps appeals from a judgment of conviction after she pled no

contest to two counts of second degree robbery and one count of assault with a

semiautomatic firearm. She also admitted personally using a firearm in connection with

                                                             1
one of the robbery counts. We appointed counsel to represent Epps on appeal, and

counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v.

California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, asking us to conduct an independent review of the

record. We affirm.

                                      BACKGROUND1

          Victim one listed her iPhone for sale on Facebook Marketplace and agreed to meet

a potential buyer one night in October 2022. Epps met victim one at the prearranged

meeting place, drew a black handgun, and placed the gun against victim one’s head.

Epps forcibly took the iPhone from victim one and told the victim to leave. The victim

later identified Epps in a photographic lineup.

          Approximately one week after the first robbery, victim two contacted a person on

Facebook Marketplace who was selling a car. Victim two agreed to meet the seller to

look at the car. Epps arrived at the prearranged meeting place in a gray Honda Accord.

She pointed a black handgun at victim two and demanded all of his money. Victim two

gave her all of his money and fled in his car. He later identified Epps in a photographic

lineup.

          A number of weeks later, in December 2022, victim three contacted a person on

Facebook Marketplace who was selling a car. Victim three agreed to meet the seller at

the same location where the first robbery had occurred. Epps arrived in a gray Honda

Accord or Honda Civic with two other people. She pointed a handgun at victim three and

1         The factual background is taken from the police reports regarding each offense.

                                               2
demanded his money. The victim gave her his money and cell phone and fled in his car.

He later identified Epps in a photographic lineup.

       In December 2022, the People filed a felony complaint charging Epps with three

counts of robbery and three counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm. (Pen. Code,

§§ 211, 245, subd. (b); unlabeled statutory citations refer to this code.) In connection

with each robbery count, the complaint also alleged that Epps personally used a firearm.

(§ 12022.53, subd. (b).) Epps initially pled not guilty to each of the charges and denied

the firearm allegations.

       Epps requested a hearing under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118

(Marsden). After conducting the hearing, the trial court denied her Marsden motion to

relieve her appointed counsel.

       In February 2023, Epps filed a declaration pursuant to section 859a stating that she

wanted to change her plea. She pled no contest to two counts of second degree robbery

and one count of assault with a semiautomatic firearm. She also admitted the firearm

allegation in connection with the first robbery count. The parties stipulated that the

police reports established a factual basis for Epps’s plea. After questioning Epps, the

court found that she had read and understood the plea form and that she was knowingly,

intelligently, and voluntarily waiving her rights.

       Epps waived the preparation of a probation report and requested immediate

sentencing. Consistent with the parties’ plea agreement, the court sentenced Epps to a

total of 18 years in prison, consisting of five years for the first robbery count (the upper

                                              3
term), plus 10 years for the firearm enhancement; two years for assault with a

semiautomatic firearm (one-third the middle term); and one year for the second robbery

count (one-third the middle term). The court awarded Epps 69 days of credit, consisting

of 60 days actually served and nine days of conduct credit. It also imposed fees of $210

(§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1); Gov. Code, § 70373, subd. (a)(1)), a victim restitution fine of

$300 (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)(1)), and a parole revocation restitution fine of $300 (§ 1202.45,

subd. (a)), which the court stayed pending successful completion of parole. The court

granted the People’s motion to dismiss the remaining counts and allegations.

                                      DISCUSSION

       Counsel’s Wende brief identified four potential arguable issues: (1) whether Epps

validly waived her right to appeal; (2) whether there was sufficient evidence to support

her convictions; (3) whether the court erred by denying her Marsden motion; and (4)

whether defense counsel provided ineffective assistance. We advised Epps that she had

30 days to file any personal supplemental brief. We received no response.

       We have independently reviewed the record and find no arguable error that would

result in a disposition more favorable to Epps. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106,

118-119; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.) Accordingly, we affirm the

judgment.

                                             4
                                 DISPOSITION

     The judgment is affirmed.

     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                               MENETREZ
                                                          J.

We concur:

CODRINGTON
          Acting P. J.

RAPHAEL
                       J.

                                      5