People v. Dambra CA4/3

Filed 4/24/14 P. v. Dambra CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G048667

v. (Super. Ct. No. 12NF1885)

KELLY RONALD DAMBRA, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gary S. Paer, Judge. Affirmed. John L. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

INTRODUCTION Defendant Kelly Ronald Dambra was convicted of two counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)), and admitted he had suffered a prior conviction (id., §§ 667, subds. (d) & (e)(1), 1170.12, subds. (b) & (c)(1), & 667, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of seven years in prison, and awarded him 334 days of presentence custody credit. Defendant timely appealed from the judgment. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), setting forth the facts of the case and requesting that we review the entire record. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), appointed counsel provided a list of potential issues to assist us in our independent review. Defendant was granted 30 days to file written arguments in his own behalf, but did not do so. We have examined the entire record and counsel’s Wende/Anders brief. After considering the entire record, we have found no reasonably arguable issue. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) We therefore affirm. BACKGROUND On June 10, 2012, two Wal-Mart asset protection associates observed Kelly Loza placing “high-dollar” items in the top part of her shopping cart, near her purse. One of the asset protection associates observed Loza meet with defendant in an aisle of the store, show him an item, and have what appeared to be a friendly conversation. After defendant left, Loza went to another department. One of the associates saw Loza put the items in her purse, grab her purse, and exit the store. The asset protection associate followed Loza out of the store. The associate cut in front of Loza, showed her badge, and identified herself as a member of the Wal-Mart asset protection team. Loza said, “I don’t have anything. I don’t know what you’re talking about.” The other asset protection associate, who was a male, also