Filed 1/24/18 P. v. Nathan CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA



THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

LAMOND NATHAN,

Defendant and Appellant.
D072166



(Super. Ct. No. SCE361302)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, John M. Thompson, Judge. Affirmed.

Kurt David Hermansen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Lamond Nathan was charged with assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4); count 1) and battery causing serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (b); count 2). The information alleged Nathan personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim within the meaning of section 12022.7, subdivision (a) with respect to both counts and that Nathan was previously convicted of two serious prior felonies (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) that also qualified as strike priors (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12).
Nathan pleaded not guilty, denying all the allegations against him. The matter proceeded to trial and the jury returned a guilty verdict on both counts and found both enhancement allegations under section 12022.7, subdivision (a) true. Nathan waived his right to a jury trial on the allegations under section 667 and admitted they were true. At sentencing, the court struck one of Nathan's strike-prior allegations and sentenced him to 21 years in prison, consisting of eight years on count 1 (the four-year upper term, doubled under the "Three Strikes" law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12)), three years for the enhancement under section 12022.7 on count 1, and five years for each of the two serious prior felonies. The court stayed punishment for count 2 under section 654. Nathan filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating he identified no reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asked this court to review the record as mandated by Wende. We offered Nathan the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he did not respond.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Nathan entered a bank in El Cajon, California, and aggressively approached a bank employee demanding to see what was in his account and to give him his money. The bank manager asked Nathan to leave and he cooperated. Nathan returned to the bank the next day and was assisted by an account manager at his desk. The account manager could not locate an account for Nathan and explained to Nathan how to open an account. Nathan became agitated and eventually stood up from the desk and walked toward the door. Another bank employee was also leaving and held open the door as Nathan approached. Nathan punched the employee in the back of the head, causing the employee's head to strike the door. The employee suffered a laceration and bruising, as well as a concussion that led to several months of debilitating migraine headaches.
Two bank customers independently identified Nathan as the assailant and one took identifying photographs with his cell phone. The bank's security cameras did not capture Nathan assaulting the bank employee, but they did record the employee walking toward the door and Nathan behind him. Nathan testified in his own defense at trial and denied attacking the bank employee. He admitted that he was at the bank on the day of the attack and that he was frustrated when the account manager could not locate an account in his name.
DISCUSSION
As indicated, appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and asked this court to review the record for error. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel identified the following possible issues to assist this court in our review of the record: (1) Whether conducting the preliminary hearing in Nathan's absence after he refused to leave his jail cell was prejudicial error, and (2) whether the prosecutor's statement during closing argument that Nathan had prior felony convictions was improper.
Our review of the record as mandated by Wende and Anders, including the possible issues referred to by appellate counsel, disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel represented Nathan on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.


IRION, J.

WE CONCUR:




BENKE, Acting P. J.




O'ROURKE, J.