Filed 9/25/17 P. v. Mabon CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
LEJON DOMINIC MABON,
Defendant and Appellant.
| H044329 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. C1363746) |
Defendant Lejon Dominic Mabon appeals from a judgment following his guilty plea to first degree robbery. (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 213.)[1] The charges arose on August 17, 2013, when defendant and his co-defendant, Brian Anthony Fosselman, entered a residence with guns and demanded money from the two residents there. Later that night police tried to stop an SUV that was moving without its headlights on. As they reached a cul-de-sac, defendant and Fosselman fled from the vehicle, leaving two passengers who identified them when police finally stopped the car. Stolen property was later recovered from the vehicle.
Defendant and Fosselman were charged together with first degree robbery “in concert” with the personal use of a firearm (§§ 211, 213, subd. (a)(1)(A); § 12022.53, subd. (b)) and resisting arrest (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)). The information further alleged that defendant had suffered a prior “strike” conviction for first degree burglary (§§ 459-460, subd. (a)), within the meaning of the three strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12); a prior serious felony conviction for the same burglary (§ 667, subd. (a)); and two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
The first trial ended in a hung jury on July 25, 2016, and the trial court declared a mistrial. Before retrial began, defendant pleaded no contest to residential robbery and admitted the prior strike conviction and two prison priors, with the understanding that he would receive a prison sentence of eight years and dismissal of the remaining allegations.
On October 31, 2016, the court sentenced defendant to the agreed-upon eight-year sentence, consisting of the low term of three years, doubled to six years based on the strike, plus two years for each prison prior. The court acknowledged 1,161 actual and 174 conduct days of presentence credits, for a total of 1,335 days. From that judgment this timely appeal followed, directed only at the sentence “or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea.”
Appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief that states the case and the facts but raises no issues. Defendant was notified of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf but has not availed himself of that opportunity. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124, we have carefully reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there are no arguable issues on appeal.
The judgment is affirmed.
_________________________________
ELIA, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
_______________________________
BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, J.
_______________________________
MIHARA, J.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
