P. v. Cruz

Filed 6/30/06 P. v. Cruz 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark V. Mooney, Judge. Affirmed.

Barbara A. Smith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Hugo Cruz appeals from judgment entered following a resentencing hearing at which he was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole, the great bodily injury enhancement pursuant to Penal Code section 12022.7 was stricken and custody credits were recalculated. He previously was convicted by a jury of willful, deliberate and premeditated attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a) & 664) and found to have personally used and intentionally discharged a firearm, resulting in great bodily injury (Pen. Code, §§ 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), and (d) & 12022.7.) He was also convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a).) In an unpublished opinion of this court filed July 28, 2005, appellant's convictions were affirmed but the case was remanded to the trial court for resentencing to correct the court's erroneous oral pronouncement of sentence, to strike the great bodily injury enhancement pursuant to Penal Code section 12022.7 and to recalculate credits.

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.[1]

On May 8, 2006, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. 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

EPSTEIN, P. J.

We concur:

WILLHITE, J.

SUZUKAWA, J.

Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.

Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Real Estate Lawyers.

[1] Counsel additionally wrote to the Superior Court Clerk to request a correction of a typographical error in the Abstract of Judgment in that the box for the Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (b) has a numeral â€