People v. Pearsall CA2/7

Filed 7/22/14 P. v. Pearsall CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

THE PEOPLE, B248997

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA404529) v.

MARQUIZE ANTHONY PEARSALL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Upinder S. Kalra, Judge. Affirmed.

Susan L Ferguson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_____________________

Marquize Anthony Pearsall and a companion approached Joshua Joun and his friend Richard Son on the street. As his companion grabbed Joun and put him in a headlock, Pearsall snatched Joun’s laptop computer and fled. Joun gave chase, caught up with Pearsall and demanded that he return the computer. Pearsall punched Joun in the head several times and ran away, leaving behind a backpack containing identifying information, which the police used to find and arrest Pearsall. The People filed an information charging Pearsall with one count of second degree robbery. Pearsall pleaded not guilty to the charge. Following a jury trial, Pearsall was found guilty of second degree robbery. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Pearsall on five years of formal probation, on condition he serve 365 days in county jail or the New Harvest Christian Fellowship Program, with credit for time served. The court imposed statutory fees, fines and assessments and ordered Pearsall to make restitution to Joun. We appointed counsel to represent Pearsall on appeal. After examination of the record counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On March 24, 2014, we advised Pearsall he had 30 days within which to submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. We have not received a response. We have examined the entire record and are satisfied Pearsall’s attorney has complied fully with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) The judgment is affirmed.