P. v. Congious

Filed 9/29/06 P. v. Congious CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. John T. Doyle, Judge. Affirmed.

Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_____________

Roderick Darnell Congious appeals his conviction for receiving stolen property. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). He was notified that he could file his own supplemental brief, and has not done so.

The original charges were petty theft with a prior (count 1), receiving stolen property (count 2), and extortion (count 3). The information further alleged that appellant had three prior convictions that resulted in prison terms, and five prior convictions that qualified as strikes.

At the preliminary hearing, a sheriff’s deputy testified that he responded to a call at the home of the victim, Mr. Soto, in the early afternoon of November 1, 2005. Soto and appellant were arguing about a car that had been in a traffic collision two days earlier. That evening, the deputy returned to Soto’s home, because it had been burglarized. Items taken in the burglary included jewelry and two cell phones. Soto told the deputy that he had called the number of one of the missing cell phones. The man who answered said he would return Soto’s property if Soto “fixed the crash.” The deputy brought appellant to Soto’s home. Appellant yelled at Soto about who would pay for the damage from the collision. Soto told the deputy that appellant had the same “distinctive raspy voice” as the man who spoke on the stolen cell phone. The cell phones were later recovered from appellant’s girlfriend, who said appellant gave them to her. Appellant confessed to taking the cell phones, but denied taking the jewelry.

On the day of trial, appellant pled guilty to count 2 and admitted the strike and enhancement allegations. He was immediately sentenced to a total of six years in prison. That sentence is based on the midterm of two years for receiving stolen property, doubled for one strike, plus one year each for two prior prison terms. The remaining charges were dismissed, pursuant to a plea bargain. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. He wrote on the notice of appeal that the issue was “ineffective counsel,” as “counsel in four months of representation never took a full statement from the accused but saw fit to declare ready for trial without being prepared or having questioned possible witnesses.”

The record on appeal contains nothing to support the issue raised in appellant’s notice of appeal. We are satisfied from our examination of the record that appellant’s attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities, and that no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

FLIER, J.

We concur:

COOPER, P. J. RUBIN, J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.