Filed 1/26/16 P. v. Davis CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D068138
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS273151)
MICHAEL EARL DAVIS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Francis M.
Devaney, Judge. Affirmed.
Jennifer A. Gambale for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted Michael Earl Davis of one count of robbery (Pen. Code,1 § 211).
Davis admitted three serious felony prior convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and three
strike priors based on the same convictions (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). The court struck two
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
of the "strike" priors and imposed a determinate sentence of 25 years in prison. Davis
filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating she has been unable to identify any reasonably arguable
issue for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as
mandated by Wende. We offered Davis the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal.
Davis has responded with a supplemental brief, which we will discuss below.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
At about 1:40 p.m., on June 2, 2014, a man approached a Citibank teller, holding a
bag in his hand. The man told the teller, "This is a robbery and I want you to put all of
your money into the bag and no dye packs." The teller placed over $10,000 in the bag
and the man left. The teller pressed the panic button and advised bank staff what had
happened.
Ultimately, the teller reviewed surveillance photos and identified Davis as the
robber.
Davis was not apprehended that day, so police issued "wanted" posters to various
places. An employee of Pacific Furlough recognized Davis from the poster and a
photographic display. She knew Davis as a person who had been at the furlough center
on more than one occasion.
A federal probation officer, who was supervising Davis, viewed the bank
surveillance photos and identified Davis as the robber.
2
Davis was arrested on July 3, 2014. Police did not recover any of the bank money
and were not able to connect Davis to the robbery by DNA analysis.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has advised the court she has not been able to
identify any reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal. In compliance with Anders
v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified one possible, but not
reasonably arguable issue to assist this court in conducting our review of the record for
error:
Whether there is sufficient substantial evidence in the record to support the
robbery conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
In his supplemental brief, Davis essentially contends his defense counsel provided
ineffective assistance. He faults counsel for not filing a motion under section 1538.5
(search and seizure motions) to suppress a defective identification process. He also
asserts counsel should have filed a "Romero" motion (People v. Superior Court (Romero)
(1996) 13 Cal.4th 497) to strike his "strike" priors. We note the trial court did strike two
of the strike priors, thus avoiding a life sentence for Davis. Davis does not provide any
support for the assertions made in the supplemental brief.
In addition to his supplemental brief, Davis filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus with this court. (In re Davis (D069498).) That petition was denied by separate
order filed January 5, 2016.
We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436,
and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738. We have not been able to identify any reasonably
3
arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Davis on this
appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
BENKE, J.
4