P. v. Sanders
Filed 7/26/06 P. v. Sanders CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 FOUR
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TONY WAYNE SANDERS, Defendant and Appellant. | B187588 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SA054284) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Elden Fox, Judge. Affirmed.
Judith Vitek, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Tony Wayne Sanders appeals from judgment entered following a court trial in which he was convicted of four counts of robbery, counts 2, 5, 6 and 7 (Pen. Code, § 211) and one count of attempted robbery, count 8 (Pen. Code, §§ 664/211) with the finding as to counts 2 and 5 that he personally used a firearm within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.53 and with the finding as to all counts that at the time of the commission of the offenses, he was released from custody on bail within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.1.
After review of the record, appellant's 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 May 15, 2006, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. On June 9, 2006, pursuant to appellant's request, an extension of time to file a supplemental brief was granted to and including July 5, 2006. 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 counsel's 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.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
SUZUKAWA, J.
We concur:
EPSTEIN, P.J. MANELLA, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Real Estate Attorney.
