P. v. Smith
Filed 10/10/07 P. v. Smith CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(El Dorado)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ARTHUR LOUIS SMITH, Defendant and Appellant. | C054454 (Super. Ct. No. P04CRF0563) |
Two females and three males robbed an El Dorado County video store. One male brandished a handgun. The clerk was escorted to the bathroom and told to count to 100 and then exit from the back door. The robbers took $500 to $600 from the cash register and a few dollars from the clerk. Defendant Arthur Louis Smith was identified as a participant. He later surrendered to authorities without incident. When interviewed, he admitted possessing and brandishing a handgun.
Defendant pleaded no contest to second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211, 212.5, subd. (c); further undesignated section references are to the Penal Code) and admitted allegations that he personally used a handgun in the commission of the offense. ( 12022.5, subd. (a)(1), 12022.53, subd. (b).) In exchange, a count of conspiracy to commit robbery ( 182, subd. (a)(1)) was dismissed.
Defendant was sentenced to state prison for a stipulated term of 12 years, consisting of the low term of two years plus 10 years for the section 12022.53 enhancement; sentence on the section 12022.5, subdivision (a) enhancement was stayed pursuant to section 654. He was awarded two days of custody credit and zero days of conduct credit, ordered to make restitution to his victims, and ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine ( 1202.4) and a $200 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked ( 1202.45).
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HULL , J.
We concur:
NICHOLSON , Acting P.J.
CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line Lawyers.
