Filed 9/2/26 P. v. Whitehurst 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, D086776
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCN466499)
v.
MARVIN WHITEHURST,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Sim von Kalinowski, Judge. Affirmed.
Marvin Whitehurst, in pro. per., and Belinda Escobosa, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted Marvin Whitehurst of one count of robbery (Pen. Code,
§ 211) Whitehurst waived jury trial on the alleged aggravating factors. The
court found the alleged aggravating factors to be true. The court denied
probation and sentenced Whitehurst to the upper term of five years in prison.
Whitehurst filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Counsel asks the court to
independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende.
We advised Whitehurst of his right to file his own brief. He has
responded by filing a hand-written supplemental letter brief. The bulk of the
material presented is not legible. Some of the material we are able to read is
statements of principle without explaining how such material raises arguable
issues for reversal of the judgment. Whitehurst’s brief does not identify any
arguable issues for reversal on appeal.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Appellate counsel has provided a summary of the evidence presented at
trial. It provides a background for searching the record for error. We will
include the summary here for that limited purpose.
“A. Prosecution’s Evidence
“The prosecution presented testimony from transit employees, a
responding officer, and a rebuttal security officer regarding the events of May
15, 2025, at the Oceanside Transit Center. (3RT 303, 324, 336-337, 358, 400.)
“On May 15, 2025 at approximately 11:30 a.m., an elderly . . . woman
entered the transit office pulling a rolling suitcase and began talking to one of
the customer service agents. (3RT 324–325, 337-338.) She was in her 70s or
80s and approximately 5'1" and under 100 pounds. (3RT 324-325, 337.)
“While the woman was speaking to a customer service agent, appellant,
who was barefoot and dressed in black, approached the woman from behind
and placed her in a headlock. (3RT 326-327, 338-339, 347, 349.) He placed
one arm around her neck and the other hand on her head. (3RT 326-327, 338-
339, 348.)
2
“The woman appeared frightened and started screaming for him to let
go, but he did not respond. (3RT 339.) As the customer service agent came
around the side door that leads to the lobby, appellant set the lady down on
the ground and grabbed her suitcase. (3RT 339-341.) He opened her suitcase,
rummaged through it, removed a tin box, and left. (3RT 341, 352, 355, 362.)
Appellant made no threats or demands for property, only took the tin box,
and there was no further violence. (3RT 351-353, 362.) Surveillance video
captured the incident. (3RT 342, 361.)
“A transit security officer for North County Transit Department
(NCTD) observed appellant walking through the transit area carrying the tin
box. (3RT 402, 407.) As appellant walked by the security officer, he verbally
berated the officer to “do [his] [explicative] job.” (3RT 403-404, 410, 412.)
Appellant then walked over to a wood chipping machine where there were
other NCTD officers and threw the box into the machine, attempting to
discard it. (3RT 403-404.) The box did not fully enter the machine and was
retrieved by a nearby worker. (3RT 404.)
“The security officer returned the tin box to the elderly . . . woman
approximately two minutes after the incident. (3RT 354, 362, 405, 408.) It
contained cookies. (3RT 408-409.)
“Appellant remained in the transit district area and did not attempt to
flee or appear frantic. (3RT 411.)
“An Oceanside Police Department officer responded to a 911 call. (3RT
345, 358-359.) He contacted the elderly woman. (3RT 359.) She appeared
frightened and distressed but declined to provide any identifying information.
(3RT 359–360.) Her identity is unknown and she did not testify at trial. (3RT
360, 415-416.)
3
“B. Defense Evidence
“Appellant testified in his own defense. (3RT 370-373.) On May 15,
2025, he was at the Oceanside Transit Center as he had decided to abscond
from parole due to personal stress. (3RT 374-375, 389.) While on the platform
waiting for a train, he overheard a conversation between the elderly . . . lady
and a security guard that led him to believe the victim had been instructed to
leave a suitcase containing an explosive device. (3RT 374, 376-379, 385-386.)
He feared for his safety and the safety of others at the transit center. (3RT
378-379, 385.)
“Appellant followed the . . . woman into the office to “diffuse the
situation.” (3RT 379-380, 388, 390.) He admitted placing his arm around her
neck and guiding her to the ground but claimed he did so without intent to
harm her or steal from her. (3RT 380, 387-388, 395.) He then opened her
suitcase, observed its contents, and removed a tin box, which he believed to
be the suspected explosive device. (3RT 380-381, 389-390, 395-396.) He did
not make any threats or demands and was not searching for valuables, but
only for the perceived threat. (3RT 380-381.)
“Appellant carried the tin box outside and attempted to discard it near
a woodchipper approximately 50 feet away, then remained in the area and
waited for police to arrive. (3RT 382-383, 392.) He only had the tin box in his
hands for a few seconds. (3RT 383.) He did not intend to rob the victim and
acted solely out of fear and a desire to protect others. (3RT 384-385.)
“Appellant admitted to having convictions for crimes involving moral
turpitude in [2010], 2020, and 2022. (3RT 396.) He further admitted that he
was on parole at the time of the incident. (3RT 396-397.)”
4
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks
the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in
its review and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738
(Anders), counsel has identified three possible issues that were considered in
evaluating the potential merits of this appeal.
Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict.
Whether the court erred in admitting the surveillance video.
Whether the court abused its discretion in sentencing appellant.
We have independently reviewed the record for error as required by
Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal
on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Whitehurst on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.*
WE CONCUR:
MCCONNELL, P. J.
BERMÚDEZ, J.
* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate
District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.
5