People v. Salcido CA4/3

Filed 8/7/23 P. v. Salcido CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, G061715
v. (Super. Ct. No. 22WF0903)
HEATHER ENNON SALCIDO, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Steven
D. Bromberg, Judge. Affirmed.
Laura Vavakin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson, Marvin E.
Mizell and Christine Y. Friedman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
* * *
A jury convicted defendant Heather Ennon Salcido of one count of robbery.
(See Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c); People v. Estes (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 23.)
The trial court granted formal probation. Salcido filed an appeal.
After clarifying the record on appeal, and under the procedures outlined in
Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), and People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436 (Wende), appointed counsel filed an opening brief identifying “no specific
contentions as grounds for relief.” Salcido has not filed a supplemental brief on her own
behalf. After independently reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment.
I
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On April 4, 2022, Salcido was in a Macy’s store carrying merchandise and
a bag that appeared empty. Salcido entered a dressing room and stayed there for about a
half an hour. When Salcido left the dressing room, the bag she was carrying was larger,
and she appeared to be wearing some of the merchandise under her own clothing.
Salcido proceeded to the beauty department where she took a fragrance from the counter
and appeared to put it in her jacket.
Salcido left the store without stopping at the cash registers and paying for
the merchandise. Two Macy’s loss prevention employees identified themselves and
asked Salcido to come back into the store. Salcido refused and attempted to push past the
employees. As the loss prevention employees attempted to handcuff Salcido, she resisted
and began to flail her arms, striking one of the employees in the face, knocking off his
glasses. For safety reasons, the Macy’s employees stopped attempting to apprehend
Salcido. Police eventually arrested Salcido after a brief struggle.
The prosecution charged Salcido with one count of second degree robbery.
(Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c).) Following a trial, a jury convicted Salcido of the
charged crime. The trial court granted Salcido probation with various terms and
2
conditions, including 100 days in the county jail.
This court appointed counsel to represent Salcido on appeal. After the
superior court clarified the record on appeal (the court mistakenly included extraneous
materials in the clerk’s transcript), appointed counsel filed a supplemental opening brief
under the procedures set forth in Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386
U.S. 738. Salcido has not filed a supplemental brief on her own behalf.
II
DISCUSSION
When a defendant’s appointed appellate counsel identifies no arguable
issues on appeal, an appellate court may independently review the record for arguable
issues. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.) Generally, “an arguable issue on
appeal consists of two elements. First, the issue must be one which, in counsel’s
professional opinion, is meritorious. That is not to say that the contention must
necessarily achieve success. Rather, it must have a reasonable potential for success.
Second, if successful, the issue must be such that, if resolved favorably to the appellant,
the result will either be a reversal or a modification of the judgment.” (People v. Johnson
(1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109.)
Appointed counsel directed this court’s attention to the following possible
issues counsel considered, but did not raise as grounds for relief (boldfacing omitted):
“Whether it was prejudicial error for the trial court to exclude Macy’s asset
protection training video from evidence.”
“Whether the prosecutor committed misconduct by vouching for witnesses
in closing argument, prejudicing appellant.”
“Whether the prosecutor committed misconduct in closing argument by
personally attacking defense counsel, prejudicing appellant.”
“Whether the prosecutor improperly shifted the burden of proof in closing
3
argument, prejudicing appellant.”
“Whether the prosecutor misstated the law in closing argument, prejudicing
appellant.”
This court has independently reviewed the corrected record on appeal, and
we find no arguably meritorious issues, either among the issues suggested by appointed
1
counsel, or otherwise.
III
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
MOORE, ACTING P. J.
WE CONCUR:
GOETHALS, J.
DELANEY, J.
1
We commend appointed appellate counsel for her thoroughness throughout these
proceedings.
4