P. v. Lopez
Filed 4/2/07 P. v. Lopez CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ELVIS LENIN LOPEZ, Defendant and Appellant. | B191229 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA287310) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Anita H. Dymant, Judge. Affirmed.
Lynette Gladd Moore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________________
A jury convicted defendant and appellant Elvis Lenin Lopez of making a criminal threat, in violation of Penal Code section 422,[1]and attempted extortion, in violation of section 524. The jury found that both offenses were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(A). Defendant admitted suffering a serious felony prior conviction within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a), and a prior conviction under the three strikes law within the meaning of sections 667, subdivisions (b)-(i), and 1170.12, subdivisions (a)-(d). Defendant was sentenced to state prison for a total of 14 years on the criminal threat charge, consisting of 4 years for making a criminal threat (the midterm of 2 years, doubled under the three strikes laws), plus 5-year enhancements for both the serious felony prior conviction and the gang finding. A seven-year state prison sentence was imposed on the attempted extortion count, but the sentence was stayed pursuant to section 654.
Defendant filed a timely appeal from the judgment. Counsel was appointed to represent defendant on appeal. On December 20, 2006, appointed counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record for arguable issues. Defendant has been advised by this court of his right to file a supplemental brief. No supplemental brief has been received from defendant.
Our review of the reporters transcript reveals the following facts. Defendant, claiming membership in the Mara Salvatrucha gang, attempted to extort rent of $30 or $50 per week from Carmelo Sanchez, for the privilege of working in the neighborhood selling fruit from a cart. When Sanchez balked at paying rent, defendant said that others also paid rent, and whoever did not would get shot. Evidence was presented as to defendants admission to being a Mara Salvatrucha member, as well as proof of two predicate gang related offenses for purposes of the gang enhancement.
Our review of the record reveals no arguable issues on appeal and counsel has fulfilled her obligation to represent defendant. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-284; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.) The judgment is affirmed.
KRIEGLER, J.
We concur:
TURNER, P. J.
ARMSTRONG, J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Property line attorney.
[1] All statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated.
