People v. Pinkard CA2/3 ( 2024 )

Filed 1/31/24 P. v. Pinkard CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE
THE PEOPLE, B328727
Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. VA159276
v.
JONATHAN DAVID PINKARD,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court
of Los Angeles County, Lisa S. Coen, Judge. Affirmed.
Belinda Escobosa, under appointment by the Court
of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________
Jonathan David Pinkard appeals his conviction for robbery.
Pinkard’s counsel has asked us independently to review the
record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).
We affirm.
On September 22, 2022, Daniel Obregon was working
construction on Greenleaf Avenue in Whittier. Obregon and
a coworker were demolishing a residence. When Obregon and
his coworker arrived at the property that morning, Pinkard
and another person were there. Pinkard was sleeping inside
the building. Obregon asked them to leave because the structure
was going to be demolished.
About an hour later, Pinkard held a knife or dagger
to Obregon’s rib and demanded money. Pinkard told Obregon,
“ ‘Give me your money, son of a bitch.’ ” Obregon, in fear,
gave Pinkard his money, about $130. Obregon called his boss,
then went to the police and filed a report.
Whittier Police Officer Samuel Herrera was working at
the station that afternoon. He spoke with Obregon, who gave
him a description of the suspect. Herrera believed the person
Obregon was describing was Pinkard, whom Herrera knew
as “a local transient.”
A couple of days after the robbery, Obregon went back
to the police station. He identified Pinkard in a photographic
lineup. Herrera went to the property on Greenleaf, found
Pinkard there, and arrested him.
Back at the station, Herrera interviewed Pinkard. A video
and audio recording of the interview was played for the jury
at trial. Pinkard told Herrera, “[T]he guy wanted to buy drugs,”
and Pinkard took his money—$80—“because they were kicking
us out of there.” Pinkard said he used the money to buy food.
2
The People charged Pinkard with second degree robbery.
Pinkard testified on his own behalf at trial. Pinkard said he’d
been living at the Greenleaf property “for like six months.”
Pinkard testified he’d never seen Obregon until he testified
at trial. Pinkard denied having robbed Obregon.
The jury convicted Pinkard and found true certain
aggravating factors. The trial court sentenced Pinkard to
the low term of two years in the state prison.
Pinkard appealed and we appointed counsel to represent
him on appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed
an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court
independently to review the record under Wende, supra, 25
Cal.3d 436. Counsel stated she had advised Pinkard that he
could file a supplemental brief within 30 days. On October 10,
2023, we sent a letter directing counsel to send the record
of this appeal and a copy of her opening brief to Pinkard, and
noting he could file a supplemental brief raising any contentions
or arguments he wished this court to consider. We have not
received any supplemental brief from Pinkard.
We have independently reviewed the record and find
no arguable issues. We are satisfied that Pinkard’s counsel
has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable
issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110;
Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
3
DISPOSITION
We affirm Jonathan David Pinkard’s conviction.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
EGERTON, J.
We concur:
EDMON, P. J.
LAVIN, J.
4