Filed 7/14/25 P. v. Jackson CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B339279 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. BA513054) ANDREW JACKSON, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael Garcia, Judge. Affirmed.

Naomi L. Svensson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

A trial jury convicted defendant and appellant Andrew Jackson (defendant) of robbery and dissuading a witness by force or threat. The convictions rested on evidence that defendant, in December 2022, accosted two victims who won at a game of three card monte and demanded money; pursued, with others in a larger group, one of the victims who attempted to flee; and was present in the area when others in that larger group beat one of the victims and took the victims’ mobile phones (and cash) at knifepoint. At sentencing, defendant admitted sustaining a prior conviction and a prior juvenile offense qualifying as “strike” crimes. The trial court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the two strike crimes pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, suspended imposition of sentence, and placed defendant on three years’ probation under certain terms and conditions.

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 February 27, 2025, this court advised defendant he had 30 days to personally submit any contentions or issues he wanted us to consider. Defendant submitted nothing.

We have examined the appellate record, and we are satisfied defendant’s attorney on appeal has complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issue exists. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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:

MOOR, J.

KIM (D.), J.