Filed 3/13/24 P. v. Holt CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B323311 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SA100631) v. JAHLIL HOLT, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lana Kim, Judge. Affirmed.

Evan D. Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

On May 29, 2019, defendant Jahlil Holt (defendant) entered an AT&T retail store near Los Angeles International Airport carrying a duffle bag.1 He approached a store clerk standing behind the counter, displayed a gun, and escorted the clerk to the breakroom where another store employee was eating lunch. At gunpoint, defendant directed the two employees to the store’s safe room where he ordered them to open the safe and fill the duffle bag with cellular phones and other products.

Defendant fled the store with the loaded duffle bag, and the authorities apprehended him shortly thereafter.

Defendant was charged with two counts of robbery (Pen.

Code, § 211). A trial jury found him guilty as charged. The trial court placed defendant on probation for three years, including a condition that he spend a year in county jail.

Defendant appealed from the judgment of conviction and this court appointed counsel to represent him. After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues. On November 21, 2023, this court advised defendant he had 30 days to personally submit any contentions or issues he wanted us to consider. We received no response.

We have examined the appellate record and are satisfied defendant’s attorney has complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issue exists. (Smith v. Robbins (2000)

During the course of the criminal proceedings below, defendant changed his name to Master Alexandria. To avoid any confusion at trial, defense counsel proposed that his client be referred to by his prior name. The trial court agreed. We adopt the same convention.

528 U.S. 259, 278-82; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 122- 24; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

BAKER, Acting P. J.

We concur:

KIM, J.

LEE, J.*

* Judge of the San Bernardino County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.