Filed 5/24/18 P. v. Brown CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO


THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JERMAINE QUINCY BROWN,
Defendant and Appellant.

A150442

(Alameda County
Super. Ct. No. H58524)


Defendant Jermaine Brown was sentenced to 13 years in state prison after he pleaded no contest to two counts of second degree robbery and admitted one prior prison term and one strike. On appeal, his appointed counsel has asked this court to independently examine the record in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) to determine if there are any arguable issues that require briefing. Defendant was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief, and he did so on March 5, 2018. We have independently reviewed the record in accordance with our Wende obligations and find no arguable issues. We thus affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Because defendant entered into a negotiated plea agreement, we derive the following facts surrounding defendant’s offenses from the facts stipulated to at the time defendant entered the plea and from the probation report:
On February 24, 2015, defendant entered a convenience store in San Leandro, pointed a BB gun at a store clerk, and demanded she lie on the ground. He then pointed the gun at a clerk behind the cash register, stole approximately $300 from the register, and fled the store.
Police received an anonymous tip that defendant was responsible for the robbery. A BB gun was subsequently found in a U-Haul truck in defendant’s possession. The two convenience store employees identified a photo of defendant as the perpetrator of the robbery.
On March 19, 2015, defendant was detained in connection with a series of armed robberies around the San Francisco Bay Area.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On March 23, 2015, the District Attorney of Alameda County filed a complaint alleging defendant committed three felony second degree robberies, along with a series of enhancements.
Three days later, the public defender declared a conflict, and a private attorney was appointed for defendant.
A first amended complaint filed on April 30 added a fourth second degree robbery count.
On June 19, defendant substituted retained counsel for appointed counsel.
On August 27, the district attorney filed a second amended complaint alleging defendant committed six felony second degree robberies between February 24 and March 15. Each count was alleged to be a serious or violent felony. It was further alleged that defendant had three prior felony convictions, two prior serious felony convictions (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a)(1)), two prior strikes (id., § 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)), and had served two prior prison terms (id., § 667.5, subd. (b)).
On February 25, 2016, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pleaded no contest to the first two counts of second degree robbery and admitted one strike and one prior prison term. In exchange, he was to receive a 13-year state prison sentence, to be served at 85 percent, and the remaining counts and enhancements would be dismissed.
On March 24, defendant was sentenced to 13 years in state prison. The sentence was comprised of the upper term of five years on count one, one year on count two (one-third the midterm), both of which were doubled due to the strike, and one year for the prison prior. Defendant was also assessed various fines and fees. He was awarded 427 days credit for time served.
On January 6, 2017, defendant filed a notice of appeal. It was accompanied by a request for a certificate of probable cause that stated: “Gross incompetence of Defendant’s counsel for failure to represent the defendant. Counsel failed to inquire names, address of witnesses (US Const.), failed to subpoena evidence from DA, failed to explain in plain English the paperwork—implications of the deal, alternatives, failure to argue the basic facts of the case which had no real firearms, no physical injury took place, and it is my first violent offense. His total lack of arguing my severe mental illness was a major problem in this case. Once he received his 10K, he failed to uphold the ethics of the Bar.” Defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause was granted on January 26, 2017.
Defendant’s opening brief was filed on February 8, 2018. On March 5, he filed a supplemental brief asserting multiple grounds on which his trial counsel allegedly provided ineffective assistance.
DISCUSSION
We have carefully reviewed the entire record in accordance with our Wende obligations, and we conclude there are no arguable issues on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
 

_________________________
Richman, J.


We concur:


_________________________
Kline, P.J.


_________________________
Miller, J.

























A150442; P. v. Brown