Filed 9/19/17 P. v. Pollard 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.
MONICA POLLARD,
Defendant and Appellant.
| D071375
(Super. Ct. No. JCF35908) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Christopher J. Plourd, Judge. Affirmed.
Alex D. Kreit, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Monica Pollard was charged with one count of robbery (Pen. Code,[1] § 211), one count of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), and one count of exhibiting a deadly weapon (§ 417, subd. (a)(1)).
Criminal proceedings were suspended and Pollard was found incompetent to stand trial (§ 1368). He was committed to a state hospital for treatment. In July 2016, the court found Pollard's competency had been restored.
Following a Marsden[2] hearing the case proceeded to jury trial. The jury found Pollard guilty of assault with a deadly weapon. Pollard was sentenced to four years in prison. Pollard filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating he has not been able to identify any arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record as mandated by Wende. We offered Pollard the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal but he has not responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Pollard entered a gas station in Calexico. The clerk observed Pollard in the store and noticed he had scissors in his hand. After a few minutes the clerk observed a customer, known to her as Vincent, enter the station. At some point the clerk noticed Pollard lunge at Vincent.
The clerk later viewed the store surveillance system. She saw Pollard on the video lunging at Vincent with the scissors. The store video could not be copied, although it was viewed by the responding police officer.
Vincent described the manner in which Pollard lunged at him with the scissors. Vincent was able to block the scissors from hitting him. He testified that had he not blocked the scissors they would have hit him in the stomach.
When Calexico police officers arrived, they found Pollard outside, near the gas station. Officers made repeated demands that Pollard drop the scissors before he finally dropped them. Ultimately, officers physically wrestled Pollard to the ground.
One of the officers later viewed the video from the store surveillance, but was unable to copy it. The officer testified he saw Pollard approach Vincent with the scissors on the video.
DISCUSSION
As we have stated, appellate counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issue for reversal on appeal. In order to assist this court in the review of the record, and to comply with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following possible, but not arguable issue for our consideration:
Whether the trial court erred in permitting witnesses to testify as to what they observed on the video that was not available for playing to the jury. Did that ruling violate the secondary evidence rule?
We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738. We have not identified any arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Pollard on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
IRION, J.
DATO, J.
