P. v. Murillo

Filed 8/15/06 P. v. Murillo CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David J. Danielsen, Judge. Affirmed.

Jaime Murillo entered negotiated guilty pleas to kidnapping (Pen. Code, § 207),^[1] two counts of carjacking (§ 215, subd. (a)), and five counts of robbery (§ 211). The court sentenced him to prison for 14 years eight months: the nine-year upper term on one carjacking conviction with a consecutive one year eight months on the second carjacking conviction (one-third the middle term) and consecutive one-year terms on four robbery convictions (one-third the middle term). It stayed sentence for kidnapping (§ 654) and imposed a concurrent term on the fifth robbery conviction. The record does not include a certificate of probable cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 30(b).)

FACTS

At approximately 2:40 a.m. on January 17, 2005, Murillo approached Victor Jimenez while Jimenez was entering his minivan in the area of University Avenue and 30th Street. Murillo stuck a gun in Jimenez's back and forced Jimenez into the van. Murillo drove for several hours before taking the van, Jimenez's wallet, cellular telephone and jacket, and leaving Jimenez in Bonita. Around 1:00 a.m. on January 19, Murillo and a companion blocked an SUV driven by Nicholas Smith near Via La Jolla Drive. Smith had three passengers. At gunpoint, Murillo and his companion forced the occupants from the SUV. Murillo and his accomplice took the SUV, two male occupants' wallets, and two purses left in the SUV by the female occupants.

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth the evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as possible but not arguable issues: (1) whether Murillo was advised of his constitutional rights and the consequences and waived his rights before pleading guilty; (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the upper term on one carjacking conviction; (3) whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing consecutive terms; and (4) whether the trial court violated section 654 by imposing consecutive terms.

We granted Murillo permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. A review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, including the possible issues referred to pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented Murillo on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NARES, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

HALLER, J.

O'ROURKE, J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.

Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.

^[1] All statutory references are to the Penal Code.