P. v. Walker
Filed 6/7/06 P. v. Walker 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PAUL RANDALL WALKER, Defendant and Appellant. | D046789 (Super. Ct. No. SCD188250) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David M. Gill, Judge. Affirmed.
A jury convicted Paul Randall Walker of robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.) In a bifurcated hearing Walker admitted three prior felony convictions. (Pen. Code, § 1203, subd. (e)(4) [so called "no-probation priors"].) The court sentenced him to prison for the three-year middle term for robbery.
FACTS
On January 13, 2005, Walker entered Home Depot in the Sports Arena area, placed a spray can in his rear pocket, and left the store without paying for the item. Outside the store, Home Depot loss prevention employee Chris Lopez asked Walker to return to the store. Walker pushed Lopez and ran past him. The two scuffled and Walker hit Lopez approximately four times.
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 sufficient evidence supports the robbery conviction; (2) whether the trial court misinformed the jury through unidentified modification of instructions; (3) whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the middle term; and (4) whether the trial court erred in finding Walker ineligible for placement in the California Rehabilitation Center.
We granted Walker permission to file a brief on his own behalf and an extension of time to file the brief. 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 Walker on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
McINTYRE, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
NARES, J.
Publication Courtesy of California lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Escondido Apartment Manager Lawyers.
