P.v . Hill

Filed 1/31/07  P.v . Hill CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

            Ronald Hill appeals from a judgment of guilt and sentence following a no contest plea.  His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, in order to determine whether there is any arguable issue on appeal. We find no arguable issue and affirm.

BACKGROUND

            On October 23, 2002, at a Target store in Colma, store security observed defendant stealing a DVD player.  On May 12, 2003, defendant robbed a South San Francisco Radio Shack store of approximately $400 in cash after forcing a store clerk at gunpoint to open the cash register.  On May 17, 2003, defendant pointed a gun in the face of a store clerk at a Radio Shack store in San Bruno, told two other employees to lie down, and ordered the clerk to give him money from the cash register and a number of DVD players. 

            Defendant was charged with four counts of second degree robbery, with allegations of personal use of a firearm on each count; one count of commercial burglary; and one count of theft with a prior.  The information also alleged defendant committed the burglary while on parole and that he had two prior felony convictions; alleged a prior strike conviction; and alleged two prior prison terms. 

            Pursuant to a plea bargain for a stipulated sentence, defendant pleaded no contest to the four second degree burglary counts and admitted personal firearm use as to each count; admitted the strike prior; and admitted the prior serious felony conviction allegation.  The stipulated sentence included recall of commitment and resentencing of an Alameda County conviction for second degree robbery with personal use of a firearm.  The agreement was that defendant would plead as he did in exchange for a total combined sentence of 29 years and 8 months in the two cases and the other counts would be dismissed. 

            In the present case, the court sentenced defendant pursuant to the agreement to four years (two years doubled) for the low term on one count of second degree robbery, together with ten years (five years doubled) for the personal use of a firearm enhancement, and five years for the prior serious or violent felony conviction, and for an additional consecutive two years (one third of the mid-term, doubled) for another count of second degree robbery, together with three years and four months (one third of the ten-year enhancement) for the personal use of a firearm.  For each of the other two convictions for second degree robbery in the present case, the court sentenced defendant to a concurrent two years for each robbery and three years four months for each firearm use enhancement.  In the Alameda County case, the sentence was recalled and vacated and defendant was sentenced to a consecutive two years for the second degree robbery conviction and a consecutive three years four months for the personal use of a firearm enhancement.  The combined total sentence was 29 years, 8 months. 

            Defendant received credits for 941 days actually served and 141 days conduct credits, for a total of 1,082 days presentence credits. 

            Defense counsel brought an error in the abstract of judgment to the court's attention.  The error was corrected and a record of the correction was filed. 

            Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.  

DISCUSSION

            Defendant's counsel has represented that he served defendant with the opening brief on appeal and advised appellant of his right to submit supplemental written argument on his own behalf.  This court has reviewed a supplemental written brief from defendant, which raises issues concerning the validity of a photographic line-up and a contention that the robbery of three employees constituted only one offense.  These claims pertain to his guilt or innocence of the charged crimes and are not reviewable on appeal from a judgment entered on a no contest plea.  We find no arguable issues on appeal.  There are no legal issues that require further briefing.

DISPOSITION

            The judgment is affirmed.

                                                                                    _________________________

                                                                                    Siggins, J.

We concur:

_________________________

McGuiness, P.J.

_________________________

Parrilli, J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line Lawyers.