Court Opinion

ID: 9950437
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-13 23:03:05.981648+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:37:09.198026
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/13/24 P. v. Holt CA2/5
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE,                                             B323311

        Plaintiff and Respondent,                       (Los Angeles County
                                                        Super. Ct. No. SA100631)
        v.

JAHLIL HOLT,

        Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Lana Kim, Judge. Affirmed.
     Evan D. Williams, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
     No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
       On May 29, 2019, defendant Jahlil Holt (defendant)
entered an AT&T retail store near Los Angeles International
Airport carrying a duffle bag.1 He approached a store clerk
standing behind the counter, displayed a gun, and escorted the
clerk to the breakroom where another store employee was eating
lunch. At gunpoint, defendant directed the two employees to the
store’s safe room where he ordered them to open the safe and fill
the duffle bag with cellular phones and other products.
Defendant fled the store with the loaded duffle bag, and the
authorities apprehended him shortly thereafter.
       Defendant was charged with two counts of robbery (Pen.
Code, § 211). A trial jury found him guilty as charged. The trial
court placed defendant on probation for three years, including a
condition that he spend a year in county jail.
       Defendant appealed from the judgment of conviction and
this court appointed counsel to represent him. After examining
the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues. On
November 21, 2023, this court advised defendant he had 30 days
to personally submit any contentions or issues he wanted us to
consider. We received no response.
       We have examined the appellate record and are satisfied
defendant’s attorney has complied with the responsibilities of
counsel and no arguable issue exists. (Smith v. Robbins (2000)

1
      During the course of the criminal proceedings below,
defendant changed his name to Master Alexandria. To avoid any
confusion at trial, defense counsel proposed that his client be
referred to by his prior name. The trial court agreed. We adopt
the same convention.

                                2
528 U.S. 259, 278-82; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 122-
24; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

                         DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed.

    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                       BAKER, Acting P. J.
We concur:

      KIM, J.

      LEE, J.*

*
      Judge of the San Bernardino County Superior Court,
assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of
the California Constitution.

                                 3