DecisionDepot is for informational use only. Not legal advice. Always verify against the source ruling before relying on any analysis.
© 2026 DecisionDepot
27,361 rulings indexed. Last ingest about 1 hour ago .
Data refreshes about every 15 minutes during California business hours.
DecisionDepot is for informational use only. Not legal advice. Always verify against the source ruling before relying on any analysis.
© 2026 DecisionDepot dev · 2026-07-08 01:03 UTC Admin
People v. Epps CA4/2 (2023) · DecisionDepot
/ California Court of Appeal People v. Epps CA4/2 Unpublished Filed 8/8/23 P. v. Epps CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, E081023
v. (Super.Ct.No. FVI22003775)
ERICKA CHAUNTELLE EPPS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Debra Harris,
Judge. Affirmed.
Leslie Ann Rose, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Ericka Chauntelle Epps appeals from a judgment of conviction after she pled no
contest to two counts of second degree robbery and one count of assault with a
semiautomatic firearm. She also admitted personally using a firearm in connection with
1
one of the robbery counts. We appointed counsel to represent Epps on appeal, and
counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v.
California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, asking us to conduct an independent review of the
record. We affirm.
More from California Court of Appeal Source: opinion data from the Free Law Project / CourtListener (public-domain court records). DecisionDepot is for informational use only and is not legal advice — verify against the official reporter before relying on any text or AI-generated summary.
BACKGROUND1
Victim one listed her iPhone for sale on Facebook Marketplace and agreed to meet
a potential buyer one night in October 2022. Epps met victim one at the prearranged
meeting place, drew a black handgun, and placed the gun against victim one’s head.
Epps forcibly took the iPhone from victim one and told the victim to leave. The victim
later identified Epps in a photographic lineup.
Approximately one week after the first robbery, victim two contacted a person on
Facebook Marketplace who was selling a car. Victim two agreed to meet the seller to
look at the car. Epps arrived at the prearranged meeting place in a gray Honda Accord.
She pointed a black handgun at victim two and demanded all of his money. Victim two
gave her all of his money and fled in his car. He later identified Epps in a photographic
A number of weeks later, in December 2022, victim three contacted a person on
Facebook Marketplace who was selling a car. Victim three agreed to meet the seller at
the same location where the first robbery had occurred. Epps arrived in a gray Honda
Accord or Honda Civic with two other people. She pointed a handgun at victim three and
1 The factual background is taken from the police reports regarding each offense.
demanded his money. The victim gave her his money and cell phone and fled in his car.
He later identified Epps in a photographic lineup.
In December 2022, the People filed a felony complaint charging Epps with three
counts of robbery and three counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm. (Pen. Code,
§§ 211, 245, subd. (b); unlabeled statutory citations refer to this code.) In connection
with each robbery count, the complaint also alleged that Epps personally used a firearm.
(§ 12022.53, subd. (b).) Epps initially pled not guilty to each of the charges and denied
Epps requested a hearing under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118
(Marsden). After conducting the hearing, the trial court denied her Marsden motion to
relieve her appointed counsel.
In February 2023, Epps filed a declaration pursuant to section 859a stating that she
wanted to change her plea. She pled no contest to two counts of second degree robbery
and one count of assault with a semiautomatic firearm. She also admitted the firearm
allegation in connection with the first robbery count. The parties stipulated that the
police reports established a factual basis for Epps’s plea. After questioning Epps, the
court found that she had read and understood the plea form and that she was knowingly,
intelligently, and voluntarily waiving her rights.
Epps waived the preparation of a probation report and requested immediate
sentencing. Consistent with the parties’ plea agreement, the court sentenced Epps to a
total of 18 years in prison, consisting of five years for the first robbery count (the upper
term), plus 10 years for the firearm enhancement; two years for assault with a
semiautomatic firearm (one-third the middle term); and one year for the second robbery
count (one-third the middle term). The court awarded Epps 69 days of credit, consisting
of 60 days actually served and nine days of conduct credit. It also imposed fees of $210
(§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1); Gov. Code, § 70373, subd. (a)(1)), a victim restitution fine of
$300 (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)(1)), and a parole revocation restitution fine of $300 (§ 1202.45,
subd. (a)), which the court stayed pending successful completion of parole. The court
granted the People’s motion to dismiss the remaining counts and allegations.
DISCUSSION Counsel’s Wende brief identified four potential arguable issues: (1) whether Epps
validly waived her right to appeal; (2) whether there was sufficient evidence to support
her convictions; (3) whether the court erred by denying her Marsden motion; and (4)
whether defense counsel provided ineffective assistance. We advised Epps that she had
30 days to file any personal supplemental brief. We received no response.
We have independently reviewed the record and find no arguable error that would
result in a disposition more favorable to Epps. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106,
118-119; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.) Accordingly, we affirm the
DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MENETREZ J.
RAPHAEL J.