P. v. Ciprian

Filed 9/7/07 P. v. Ciprian CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

On July 29, 2005, defendant entered an "open" no contest plea to 16 counts of second degree robbery.[1] (Pen. Code, 211, 212.5, subd. (c).) On April 18, 2006, the court sentenced defendant to the aggregate term of 14 years, eight months in state prison consisting of the following. The court imposed the mid-term of three years on count one, plus one year for a weapon enhancement. As to counts two through nine, the court imposed one-third the mid-termone year, plus one third the enhancement timefour months, for each offense to run consecutively with the term on count one. As to counts 10 through 16, the court imposed the mid-term of three years plus a one-year enhancement on each count to be served concurrently. The court awarded defendant 478 days custody credits. The court ordered victim restitution, a restitution fund fine of $2400, and imposed but suspended a parole revocation fee in the same amount. (Pen. Code, 1202.4, subd. (b), 1202.45.) In addition, the court imposed various other fines, fees and penalty assessments and advised defendant of a three-year period of parole upon release from prison.

Pursuant to order of this court, defendant was permitted to file a notice of appeal within 10 days of November 17, 2006. Defendant filed a notice of appeal on November 22, 2006.[2]

We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Counsel filed an opening brief that stated the facts, but raised no specific issues. On May 1, 2007, we notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. To date, we have not received a response from defendant.

Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded there is no arguable issue on appeal. Pursuant to People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we provide "a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed." (Id. at p. 110.)

Facts

Between October 6, 2004, and February 21, 2005, on different dates, defendant entered eight Subway stores, three Quiznos stores, two Baskin-Robbins stores, one Jamba Juice store and one Game Stop store, displayed a gun and demanded money from the clerk or clerks in the store.[3] On each occasion, defendant left with cash ranging in amount from $50 to $1600.[4]

Procedural History

Defendant was charged in a first amended complaint filed on March 29, 2005, with 16 counts of second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, 211-212.5.) As to each count the complaint alleged that at the time of the commission of the offense charged, defendant personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon, a "BB-Gun" within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022, subdivision (b).

On July 18, 2006, after defendant freely and voluntarily waived his privilege against self-incrimination, his right to confront his accusers and his right to trial by jury as required by Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238, and In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122, and after being advised of the immigration consequences of conviction and other consequences of his plea, defendant entered a no contest plea to all 16 counts of second degree robbery and admitted that the allegation attached to each count was true.

As noted, on April 18, 2006, the court sentenced defendant to the aggregate term of 14 years, eight months in state prison.

In conclusion, after a comprehensive review of the entire record, we have failed to discover any issue requiring this court's attention.

Disposition

The judgment is affirmed.

_____________________________

ELIA, J.

WE CONCUR:

_____________________________

RUSHING, P.J.

_____________________________

PREMO, J.

Publication Courtesy of California lawyer directory.

Analysis and review provided by Escondido Property line attorney.

[1] Defendant was not made any promises in exchange for his pleas of no contest. Accordingly, his pleas were unconditional. (People v. Holmes (2004) 32 Cal.4th 432, 435 ["There are two types of guilty or no contest pleas in California: (1) a conditional plea, where the plea is conditioned upon receipt of a particular disposition; and (2) an unconditional or open plea"].)

[2] Defendant's notice of appeal specifies the appeal is based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea. He has not obtained a certificate of probable cause to raise constitutional, jurisdictional or other grounds going to the legality of his plea.

[3] On the night of February 5, 2005, defendant entered a Subway store on El Camino Real. There were two clerks working that night.

[4] When defendant robbed the Subway store on Stevens Creek Boulevard on November 16, 2004, he left with an unknown amount of cash.