People v. Salcido CA4/3

Filed 8/7/23 P. v. Salcido 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G061715

v. (Super. Ct. No. 22WF0903)

HEATHER ENNON SALCIDO, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Steven D. Bromberg, Judge. Affirmed. Laura Vavakin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson, Marvin E. Mizell and Christine Y. Friedman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

A jury convicted defendant Heather Ennon Salcido of one count of robbery. (See Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c); People v. Estes (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 23.) The trial court granted formal probation. Salcido filed an appeal. After clarifying the record on appeal, and under the procedures outlined in Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), appointed counsel filed an opening brief identifying “no specific contentions as grounds for relief.” Salcido has not filed a supplemental brief on her own behalf. After independently reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment.

I FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On April 4, 2022, Salcido was in a Macy’s store carrying merchandise and a bag that appeared empty. Salcido entered a dressing room and stayed there for about a half an hour. When Salcido left the dressing room, the bag she was carrying was larger, and she appeared to be wearing some of the merchandise under her own clothing. Salcido proceeded to the beauty department where she took a fragrance from the counter and appeared to put it in her jacket. Salcido left the store without stopping at the cash registers and paying for the merchandise. Two Macy’s loss prevention employees identified themselves and asked Salcido to come back into the store. Salcido refused and attempted to push past the employees. As the loss prevention employees attempted to handcuff Salcido, she resisted and began to flail her arms, striking one of the employees in the face, knocking off his glasses. For safety reasons, the Macy’s employees stopped attempting to apprehend Salcido. Police eventually arrested Salcido after a brief struggle. The prosecution charged Salcido with one count of second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c).) Following a trial, a jury convicted Salcido of the charged crime. The trial court granted Salcido probation with various terms and