People v. Blacksher CA2/3

Filed 3/7/23 P. v. Blacksher 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B319808
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. TA155892)
v.
DEMARIAH BLACKSHER,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Teresa P. Magno, Judge. Affirmed.
Teresa Biagini, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗
Demariah Blacksher appeals from a judgment entered after
a jury verdict. Our review is under People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436.
An information charged Blacksher with one count of
battery with serious bodily injury (Pen. Code,1 § 243, subd. (d)).
The information further alleged that the offense was a serious or
violent felony, requiring a sentence to be served in state prison.
(§ 1170, subd. (h)(3).) Blacksher proceeded to a jury trial.
At Blacksher’s trial, the victim, two investigating officers,
and the victim’s surgeon testified for the prosecution. The
evening of the incident, Blacksher entered the victim’s tobacco
store, where the victim was working behind the counter, with a
male companion, a regular customer who the victim knew as
“T.B.” Blacksher picked up a toy gun from a display and pointed
it at the victim, and then Blacksher and T.B. left the store. They
returned five minutes later and Blacksher asked the victim to use
the store’s restroom. The victim told Blacksher there was no
public restroom. After Blacksher insisted, the victim attempted
to physically block Blacksher from getting to the restroom.
Blacksher threatened to “do something” to the victim outside.
Blacksher and T.B. left the store, but as the victim followed them
to the door, the victim was punched in the left jaw area, knocking
him unconscious and later requiring surgery to his jaw. The
victim was 100 percent sure the assailant was Blacksher.
Shortly thereafter, the victim identified Blacksher in a photo
array. The store’s surveillance footage, which captured the
beginning of the incident, was played at trial.
1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal
Code.
2
After the court granted the People’s motion to admit
Blacksher’s prior felony conviction and the conduct underlying
several juvenile adjudications for impeachment purposes,
Blacksher declined to testify on his own behalf. However,
Blacksher presented expert testimony from a psychologist
specializing in eyewitness memory and suggestibility, opining on
the effect of the passage of time and of viewing a video of an
event on a person’s ability to recall certain details. The jury was
instructed on eyewitness identifications.
The jury found Blacksher guilty as charged. In April 2022,
the trial court sentenced Blacksher to the low term of two years
in state prison. Blacksher received 684 days of custody credits.
The trial court imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4,
subd. (b)), a $300 parole revocation fine (stayed pending
revocation of parole) (§ 1202.45), a $30 court facility assessment
(Gov. Code, § 70373, subd. (a)(1)), and a $40 court operations
assessment (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)).
Blacksher appealed. His court-appointed counsel filed an
opening brief which raised no issues and asked this court to
conduct an independent review of the record under People v.
Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at page 441. By letter, we advised
Blacksher that he had 30 days to submit by brief or letter any
contentions or argument he wished this court to consider. He did
not submit a brief.
We have examined the record and are satisfied no arguable
issues exist and Blacksher’s attorney has fully complied with the
responsibilities of counsel. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106,
126; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
3
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL
REPORTS.
NGUYEN (KIM), J.*
We concur:
EDMON, P. J.
EGERTON, J.
*Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the
Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California
Constitution.
4