Filed 2/22/18 P. v. Roy 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

WILLIAM ROY,

Defendant and Appellant.
D072749



(Super. Ct. No. SCD270893)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Albert T. Harutunian, Judge. Affirmed.
Richard Jay Moller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant's counsel has filed a brief under the procedures set forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441–443 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744 (Anders). We have given defendant, William Roy, the opportunity to file a brief on his own behalf and he has declined to do so. We affirm the trial court's judgment sentencing Roy to two years in prison, with a recommendation that he be placed in fire camp.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On February 10, 2017, Roy was observed taking a fragrance gift set from a department store and not paying for it. When he was confronted by a store security guard, he turned, and according to the security guard, brandished a knife, and said "do you want to get stabbed?" Consistent with the department store's policy, the security guard allowed Roy to leave because he feared for his safety.
Roy was then observed leaving the shopping center, where the department store was located, in a black SUV, at that point another security guard was able to note and record the license plate on the SUV. When arrested about two weeks later, Roy was wearing a necklace very similar to one seen on a video recording of the theft.
A jury convicted Roy of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), but found not true an allegation that he had used a knife. The prosecution moved to dismiss Roy's prior prison term allegations and Roy admitted prior convictions, which made him ineligible for probation. (Pen. Code, §§ 667.5, subd. (b), 1203, subd. (e).)
DISCUSSION
Counsel raises as potential issues: 1) whether, although no objection was made, the prosecutor committed misconduct by arguing to the jury that the defense, by disputing the security guard's version of events, was calling the guard a liar; and 2) whether Roy was provided with the effective assistance of counsel at trial. The prosecutor's suggestion was not improper (see People v. Sandoval (1992) 4 Cal.4th 155, 180 [no misconduct in calling defense doctor a "liar" during closing argument], and there is nothing in the record which suggests trial counsel was ineffective.
We have examined the record and find no other potential issues on appeal. Roy has received adequate representation on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

BENKE, J.

WE CONCUR:




McCONNELL, P. J.




DATO, J.