Filed 11/15/24 P. v. Salazar CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B335689 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA084045) v. VINCENTE SALAZAR, JR., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Kathleen Blanchard, Judge. Affirmed.

Ashwini Mate, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I. INTRODUCTION A jury found defendant Vincente Salazar, Jr. guilty of two counts of robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211. On appeal, defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We affirm.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On October 6, 2022, at approximately 8:00 p.m., Summer Roberts and Fabian Ramirez were walking along Olive Drive when they observed three people get out of a parked silver truck.

One robber wore a neon pink mask and a white, long-sleeved shirt; another wore a neon green mask; and the third wore a black shirt and no mask. One robber demanded the victims’ belongings while another announced that he was armed. The robber in the white shirt took from the victims their phones and a bag. After the robbery, the three robbers got back in the truck and drove away.

Roberts and Ramirez then called 911. Roberts was able to track the location of her phone and accompanied the police to the indicated location. The police located the truck and the three robbers, including defendant. Roberts and Ramirez identified defendant, who was wearing a white long sleeved shirt, as one of the robbers. Police officers searched the truck and found the victims’ property and two masks worn by the robbers.

III. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In an amended information filed on August 18, 2023, the Los Angeles County District Attorney charged defendant with two counts of robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211. The District Attorney also charged defendant with two counts of dissuading a witness by force or threat in violation of Penal Code section 136.1, subdivision (c)(1). Defense counsel moved to set aside and dismiss the latter two counts pursuant to Penal Code section 995. The trial court granted the motion.

On October 10, 2023, a jury convicted defendant of two counts of robbery. On November 17, 2023, the trial court sentenced defendant to the middle term of 3 years for count 1, and the middle term of 3 years for count 2, to run concurrently.

Defendant received 49 days of presentence custody credit. The trial court also imposed fines and assessments.

Defendant timely appealed. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. On August 5, 2024, counsel filed an opening brief in which counsel did not identify any arguable issues and requested that we follow the procedure set forth in Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at page 441.

On August 5, 2024, we notified defendant that appointed appellate counsel had failed to find any arguable issues and he had 30 days within which to independently brief any grounds for appeal, contentions, or arguments he wanted us to consider.

Defendant did not file a supplemental brief.

IV. DISCUSSION We have independently reviewed the record and are satisfied that defendant’s appointed appellate counsel has fully complied with counsel’s responsibilities and no arguable issues exist. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

V. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KIM, J.

We concur:

BAKER, Acting P. J.

MOOR, J.