Filed 5/24/17 P. v. Hernandez CA5








NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DAVIE HERNANDEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.


F073008

(Super. Ct. No. VCF304167A)


OPINION

THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Joseph A. Kalashian, Judge. (Retired judge of the Tulare County Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)
Elizabeth Campell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Appointed counsel for defendant Davie Hernandez asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his 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 reviewed the record, we see no arguable issues and we therefore affirm.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On March 18, 2013, defendant and another male, both gang members, forced a female driver to stop her truck. They approached, showed her what appeared to be a gun wrapped in a sweatshirt, and told her to get out. She was afraid and she complied. Defendant told her to remove her dogs from the truck or he would shoot them. The victim called her dogs out. Then defendant got in the victim’s truck, the other male got into the other vehicle, and they drove away.
On August 6, 2014, defendant was charged with multiple offenses arising from the incident.
On March 6, 2015, the trial court heard defendant’s first Marsden motion for substitute appointed counsel. During the course of the hearing, the trial court learned that defense counsel had a conflict. The court relieved and replaced counsel.
On October 22, 2015, defendant pled no contest to carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a)), admitted a gang allegation (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)) and a firearm use allegation (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)), and waived his appellate rights in exchange for an indicated sentence of 29 years.
On November 20, 2015, the trial court heard defendant’s second Marsden motion and denied it. The court sentenced defendant to the upper term of nine years on the carjacking count, plus 10 years for each enhancement, for a total of 29 years. The court ordered defendant to pay a $4,350 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $4,350 suspended parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), a $40 court security fee (§ 1465.8), and a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373).
On January 7, 2016, defendant filed a notice of appeal. The trial court granted defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause.
Having reviewed the record, we find no arguable issues on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.