People v. Hockaday CA3

Filed 12/13/21 P. v. Hockaday CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C092911

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Butte County Super. Ct. No. 19CF06316 v. Sacramento County Super. Ct. No. 19FE002575) DAMIAN MARQUIS HOCKADAY,

Defendant and Appellant.

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.)

1

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.