Background
A jury convicted Marquise Clark of two counts of robbery under Penal Code section 211. The trial court separately found true allegations that Clark had a prior serious felony conviction and a prior strike conviction. On November 13, 2025, the court imposed a total six-year prison sentence: the three-year middle term on count 1, doubled because of the strike, with a concurrent term on count 2. The court exercised its discretion to dismiss the serious felony enhancement, and Clark filed a notice of appeal on November 13, 2025.
The prosecution arose from a June 16, 2025 incident at a Home Depot in San Diego County. According to the factual summary incorporated by the Court of Appeal, loss prevention officers saw Clark place merchandise in a cart and backpack, put a folding knife in his pocket, and leave without paying while carrying a machete. Outside the store, the officers asked him to return the merchandise. Clark immediately handed over the machete but refused to return other items, removed the knife from its packaging, waived the blade, and said, 'Back the fuck up.' Both Dailey and Hoover were afraid and gave Clark more room. When authorities responded, they found Clark a block or two away from Home Depot, and merchandise recovered from his backpack was returned to Home Depot.
Clark’s appointed appellate counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende stating that counsel could not identify any arguable issue for reversal and requesting an independent review of the record. Counsel also identified two possible issues considered during that evaluation: whether the trial court abused its discretion by selecting the middle term rather than the low term, and whether it prejudicially erred in answering a jury question about “immediate presence” by referring the jury back to CALCRIM No. 1600. The appellate court advised Clark that he could file his own brief, but he did not respond. The People did not appear on appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. It independently reviewed the record for error, as requested under Wende, and stated that its review did not identify any arguable issues for reversal. The court also stated that competent counsel has represented Clark in this appeal. Its disposition was concise: “The judgment is affirmed.”
The opinion did not separately resolve the two possible issues through extended legal analysis. Instead, it treated them as matters counsel had identified for consideration in evaluating the appeal’s potential merits. The court’s independent review produced no arguable basis for reversing either the robbery convictions or the sentence. The affirmance therefore left intact the six-year term, including the doubled middle term on count 1 and the concurrent term on count 2, as well as the trial court’s dismissal of the serious felony enhancement.
Key Takeaways
- A Wende brief allows appointed appellate counsel to report that no arguable issues for reversal have been identified while asking the appellate court to review the record independently.
- The Court of Appeal independently reviewed Clark’s record and found no arguable issues for reversal.
- Counsel’s identification of possible sentencing and jury-instruction issues did not produce a separate merits ruling on either issue in this opinion.
- The court affirmed the judgment and expressly stated that competent counsel has represented Clark in this appeal.
- The six-year sentence remained in place, with the serious felony enhancement dismissed and a concurrent term imposed on the second robbery count.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the conclusion of a California criminal appeal in which appointed counsel files a Wende brief and the defendant does not submit a supplemental brief after being advised of the opportunity. The appellate court’s independent review, rather than an adversarial merits briefing by both sides, supplied the basis for determining whether any arguable appellate issue existed.
The opinion is marked 'NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS.' Its immediate result is the affirmance of Clark’s convictions and sentence, without a developed precedential discussion of middle-term sentencing discretion or the trial court’s response to the jury’s question about “immediate presence.”
Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket