P. v. Holt

Filed 3/3/06 P. v. Holt CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Kathleen Kennedy-Powell, Judge. Affirmed.

Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.

Tylo Nigel Holt (defendant) was charged with: willful, deliberate and premeditated attempted murder of a peace officer (Pen. Code,^[1] §§ 664, 187, subd. (a)) (count 1); assault on a peace officer with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (d)(2)) (count 2); and firearm possession by a felon with one prior conviction (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1)) (count 3). It was further alleged: as to counts 1 and 2, defendant personally used a firearm, a handgun, in the commission of the offense (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)); as to count 2, defendant personally used a firearm, a handgun, within the meaning of sections 12022.53, subdivision (b) and 12022.5, subdivisions (a) and (d); as to counts 1, 2, and 3, defendant had been previously convicted of a serious or violent felony (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)); as to counts 1 and 2, defendant had been previously convicted of a serious felony (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)); and as to counts 1, 2, and 3, defendant had served a prior prison term within the meaning of section 667.5.

Defendant pled nolo contendere to count 2, assault on a peace officer with a semiautomatic firearm in violation of section 245, subdivision (d)(2). Defendant admitted he had previously been convicted of a serious felony. Defendant also admitted he personally used a handgun within the meaning of section 12022.5, subdivision (a). The remaining counts and special allegations were dismissed. Defendant was sentenced to 13 years in state prison. He was ordered to pay: a $20 court security fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)); a $2,600 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)); and a $2,600 parole restitution fine (§ 1202.45). Defendant was ordered to provide blood and saliva samples and finger and palm prints. Defendant's probable cause certificate issuance request was denied. This appeal followed based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the entry of defendant's nolo contendere plea.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel has filed a brief in which no issues are raised. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442; see Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 264.) On December 29, 2005, we advised defendant he had 30 days within which to submit by brief or letter any grounds of appeal, contentions, or argument he wished this court to consider. The time to file a supplemental brief was extended at defendant's request to February 17, 2006. We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that experienced and well regarded appointed appellate counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities. No argument exists favorable to defendant in the appeal. (Smith v. Robbins, supra, 528 U.S. at pp. 277-284; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

TURNER, P. J.

We concur:

MOSK, J.

KRIEGLER, J.

Publication courtesy of Vista Criminal Law Attorney (http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/) And Vista Lawyers Directory ( http://www.fearnotlaw.com/ )

^[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.