P. v. Nunez
Filed
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CARLOS NUNEZ, Defendant and Appellant. | B189935 ( Super. |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Thomas I. McKnew, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.
Carlos Nunez, in pro. per., and Lynette Gladd Moore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
________________________________
Carlos Nunez was charged with one count of carjacking with the use of a gun, one count of unlawfully driving a vehicle, and one count of receiving stolen property. The charges were based on evidence that in May 2005 defendant approached a car in which Melissa Brown was sitting, pointed a gun at Brown and told her to get out, and drove the car away after Brown did so. Defendant was apprehended three months later while a passenger in Brown's car.
A jury convicted defendant of carjacking, with a finding that he personally used a firearm, and of receiving stolen property (the receiving conviction was dismissed at the prosecutor's request). Defendant's motion for a new trial was denied and he was sentenced to state prison for a term of 15 years. He filed a notice of appeal and we appointed counsel (Lynette Gladd Moore) to represent him.
Moore filed a motion to augment the record on appeal with a declaration from trial counsel (Richard L. Everett) explaining that, before the final verdict was returned, the jury returned other verdicts (which are neither in the original record nor in the motion to augment), that the trial court then instructed the jurors further (which is in the record), and that the jurors were given new verdict forms. According to Everett's declaration, the original verdict forms found defendant not guilty of the carjacking count (but found the personal use allegation true) and guilty of the unlawful taking and receiving counts. We denied the motion to augment.
Moore next filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441–442.) We sent notice to defendant that he could personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. Defendant responded, asking that his conviction be reversed based on the issue regarding the verdicts as set forth in the Everett declaration and erroneous instruction under CALJIC No. 2.15 (both of these points had been raised by Everett in his motion for a new trial).
This court, on its own motion, then ordered the trial court to conduct a settled statement hearing with respect to unreported bench conferences at which the verdicts were apparently discussed. The settled statement hearing was held on
The transcript of the settled statement hearing establishes that the jury did not make a finding that defendant was not guilty of carjacking or disclose any other basis on which defendant would be potentially entitled to relief. Nor did the trial court err in instructing on possession of stolen property under CALJIC No. 2.15. In sum, we have examined the entire record and are satisfied that counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (Nov. 27, 2006, S133114) ___ Cal.4th ___ [2006 D.A.R. 15444]; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
MALLANO, Acting P. J.
We concur:
VOGEL, J.
JACKSON, J.*
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.
* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
