People v. Lopez - Criminal Robbery Appeal
Summary
The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, issued a non-precedential opinion in the case of People v. Lopez. The court affirmed the judgment of the San Bernardino County Superior Court following a jury trial where the defendant was found guilty of two counts of second-degree robbery.
What changed
This document is a non-precedential opinion from the California Court of Appeal in the case of People v. Lopez (Docket Number E086017). The court affirmed the conviction of the defendant for two counts of second-degree robbery, stemming from an incident at a Home Depot in October 2024. The opinion details the charges, the defendant's motion for acquittal, the jury's verdict, and the sentencing hearing where prior convictions and aggravating factors were considered.
As this is a non-precedential appellate opinion affirming a lower court's decision, there are no immediate new compliance requirements or deadlines for regulated entities. Legal professionals involved in similar criminal defense cases may review the opinion for procedural and legal arguments, particularly concerning robbery charges and sentencing enhancements. The document does not specify any penalties beyond those imposed by the trial court.
Source document (simplified)
Jump To
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
March 17, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
People v. Lopez CA4/2
California Court of Appeal
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: E086017
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Combined Opinion
Filed 3/17/26 P. v. Lopez CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E086017
v. (Super.Ct.No. FWV24003469)
SERGIO LOPEZ, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Daniel Detienne,
Judge. Affirmed.
Ariana D’Agostino, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant Sergio Lopez appeals the judgment of the San Bernardino
County Superior Court entered against him following a jury trial.
BACKGROUND
In October 2024, defendant went into a Home Depot and robbed two of its
employees. He was charged by information with two counts of second degree robbery
(Pen. Code § 211).1 The information also alleged that defendant had suffered a prior
conviction that qualified as a strike (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subd. (a)-(d)) and a
serious felony prior (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), and alleged 10 aggravating factors (§1170,
subd. (b)(2)).
The trial court granted defendant's motion to bifurcate the proceedings so the jury
would hear only the evidence concerning the robberies. After the People rested,
defendant moved pursuant to section 1118.1 for acquittal on the grounds that the People
had not established that he used force and fear against the Home Depot employees. The
motion was denied.
The jury found defendant guilty of the two counts of second-degree robbery.
Thereafter, the trial court granted defendant’s request to proceed in pro per for his
sentencing. The court found true the allegation that defendant had a prior conviction, as
well as the aggravating factors that defendant was armed, he had numerous prior
convictions of increasing seriousness, and he had served a prior prison sentence.
1 All further statutory reference are to the Penal Code.
2
At the sentencing hearing, the trial court declined to grant defendant’s request to
dismiss his prior strike, it dismissed the five-year enhancement for a serious prior felony,
and, as to each of the second degree robbery counts, it imposed 10 years (the upper term
of five years doubled on account of the strike), with the sentence for count 2 to run
concurrently with the sentence imposed for count 1. Defendant appealed and we
appointed counsel to represent him.
DISCUSSION
Defendant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief that sets forth
statements of the case and facts but does not present any issues for adjudication. He
notes that we are required to independently review the record on appeal pursuant to
People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 440–442.
The brief lists the issues counsel considered: (i) whether the trial court erred when
it denied defendant’s section 1118.1 motion; (ii) whether defendant’s sentence violated
section 654; (iii) whether the trial court acted properly when it granted defendant’s
request to represent himself; (iv) whether the court properly denied defendant’s motion to
dismiss his strike; and, (v) whether the trial court properly imposed the upper term.
3
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which
he has not done. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 119
we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur:
MILLER
J.
CODRINGTON
J.
4
Related changes
Source
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get Courts & Legal alerts
Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when CA Court of Appeal Opinions publishes new changes.