P. v. Solomona

Filed 6/21/06 P. v. Solomona CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Defendant Daniel Friedman Solomona was charged by indictment filed December 18, 2003, with conspiracy to commit robbery (Pen. Code, § 182, subd. (a)(1);[1] count 1), two counts of unlawful assault weapon activity (§ 12280, subd. (a)(1); counts 2 & 3), two counts of vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); counts 4 & 5), three counts of falsely reporting a bomb (§ 148.1, subd. (c); counts 6 – 8), two counts of assault with an assault weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(3); counts 9 & 20), five counts of kidnapping to commit robbery (§ 209, subd. (b)(1); counts 10 – 14), and five counts of second degree robbery (§ 211; counts 15 – 19). The indictment further alleged that during the commission of the offenses in counts 9 through 19, principals were armed with two different assault weapons (§ 12022, subd. (a)(2)).

On July 28, 2004, defendant filed a motion to set aside counts 2, 3, 10 through 14, and 20, as well as the section 12022, subdivision (a)(2) allegations, in the indictment

(§ 995). The prosecutor filed opposition to the motion on September 17, 2004. The parties argued the motion at a hearing on November 18, 2004. On November 29, 2004, the court granted the motion as to count 3 (unlawful assault weapon activity, § 12280, subd. (a)(1)), and as to one of the special arming allegations (§ 12022, subd. (a)(2)) as to counts 9 through 19, and amended the allegations in count 9 to allege assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). Following a hearing on February 25, 2005, the original allegations in count 9 were restored.

On April 29, 2005, defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to all remaining counts in the indictment with the exception of counts 10 through 14, the kidnapping to commit robbery counts, and admitted the remaining arming allegations as to counts 9 and 15 through 19. Conditions of the plea included a sentence of no less than 18 years and no more than 20 years in state prison, with restitution to be ordered jointly and severally with defendant's codefendants. The probation report recommended that defendant be sentenced to a term of 18 years, and that he be ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $5,425.12, jointly and severally with his codefendants.

At the sentencing hearing on August 19, 2005, the prosecutor asked the court to sentence defendant to 16 years in state prison, and waived any argument that the sentence would violate defendant's plea agreement. The court sentenced defendant to 16 years in state prison as follows: the midterm of eight years on count 9 (§ 245, subd. (a)(3)); five consecutive terms of one year each, or one-third the midterm, on counts 15 through 19 (§ 211); three consecutive terms of eight months each, or one-third the midterm, on counts 6 through 8 (§ 148.1, subd. (c)); and one consecutive term of one year for the arming allegation as to count 9 (§ 12022, subd. (a)(2)). The court sentenced defendant to concurrent midterms of six years on count 2 (§ 12280, subd. (a)(1)), two years each on counts 4 and 5 (Veh. Code, § 10851), eight years on count 20 (§ 245, subd. (a)(3)), and one year for each of the remaining arming allegations, and stayed the term on count 1 (§ 182, subd. (a)(1)). The court also ordered defendant to pay victim restitution in the total amount of $2,977, jointly and severally with defendant's co-defendants, and granted him 722 days in custody credits.

Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 30(b)(4)(B).) We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appointed counsel has filed an opening brief that states the case and facts but raises no issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed and we have received no written response from defendant. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal.

The judgment is affirmed.

_______________________________________________________

Bamattre-Manoukian, ACTING P.J.

WE CONCUR:

__________________________

MIHARA, J.

_________________________

MCADAMS, J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.

Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Apartment Manager Attorneys.

[1] Further unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.