P. v. Rodriguez
Filed 6/26/07 P. v. Rodriguez CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSE RODRIGUEZ, Defendant and Appellant. | B190725 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA068456) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark C. Kim, Judge. Affirmed.
Stephen L. Bucklin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Jose Rodriguez appeals from a judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211) and a court trial in which he was found to have suffered a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and a prior serious felony within the meaning of Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1). He was sentenced to prison for nine years, consisting of the low term of two years, doubled pursuant to the Three Strikes law, plus five years pursuant to the enhancement of Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1).
The evidence at trial established that on December 15, 2005, Latoya Johnson was walking in an alley on her way to pick up her daughter at school when she heard appellant call out to her and saw him running towards her. Appellant asked to use her cell phone, and she told him it did not work. Appellant grabbed her arm, and she tried to yank away and run. Her purse was open and a makeup wallet was sticking out of [her purse.] Thats what he grabbed. And [she] just kept running. Police were summoned and she was driven to a nearby location to see if she could identify the robber. The first person she saw was not the person who robbed her. She was driven to another location, where she identified appellant as the robber. It was approximately five minutes after she had been robbed and she was 100 percent certain.
After review of the record, appellants court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.
On December 6, 2006, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. Pursuant to his request, he was granted an extension of time to file a supplemental brief to and including January 19, 2007. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist, and that appellant has, by virtue of counsels compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
WILLHITE, J.
We concur:
EPSTEIN, P.J.
MANELLA, J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Property line attorney.
