P. v. Gutierrez
Filed 5/9/13 P. v. Gutierrez CA2/5
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
FIVE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ROGER GUTIERREZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
B242994
(Los Angeles
County Super.
Ct.
No. MA050216)
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court
of
County, Kathleen Blanchard, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Offices
of Joy A. Maulitz and Joy A. Maulitz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
__________________________
Defendant
and appellant Roger Gutierrez entered a plea of no contest in October 2010 to a
charge of second degree robbery (Pen.
Code, § 211) and admitted the offense was committed for the benefit of a
§ 186.22, subd. (b)). Pursuant to
an agreed upon case disposition, imposition of sentence was suspended, and
defendant was placed on formal probation for three years conditioned upon,
among other things, service of one year in county jail.
Formal
probation violation proceedings were commenced against defendant in 2012. Testimony at the formal probation violation
hearing established that defendant ran upon seeing police officers. A loaded .22 caliber handgun was found in the
area where defendant jumped over a fence.
Defendant ran into a residence, without the permission of the resident,
and refused to leave when requested. He
was taken into custody in the residence.
Based on
this evidence, the trial court found defendant in violation of probation. Probation was revoked and terminated. Defendant was sentenced to prison for a total
of 13 years, consisting of 3 years for the robbery and 10 years for the gang
enhancement. Defendant filed a timely
This court
appointed counsel for defendant.
Appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues but requested this
court to independently review the record for arguable contentions pursuant to
436. Defendant was advised by letter
from this court, dated March 5, 2013,
of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days. The 30-day period has lapsed and no brief has
been received.
We have
completed our independent review of the record and find no arguable appellate
contentions. Defendant's 2010 plea was
properly entered. The probation
violation finding is supported by substantial
evidence. The sentence imposed is
authorized by law.
The
judgment is affirmed. (Smith v. Robbins
(2000) 528 U.S. 259.)
KRIEGLER,
J.
We concur:
TURNER,
P. J.
ARMSTRONG,
J.
