P .v. Lopez
A jury convicted appellant, Maxx Matthew Lopez, of second degree robbery (Pen. Code,[1] §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c); count 1), willfully discharging a firearm in a grossly negligent manner (§ 246.3, subd. (a); count 2), assault with a firearm on Dana Macklin (§ 245, subd. (a)(2); count 4), possession of a firearm within 10 years of a conviction of an enumerated misdemeanor (§ 29805; count 6), making criminal threats (§ 422; count 7), possession of ammunition by a person prohibited from owning a firearm due to a prior conviction (§ 30305, subd. (a); count 8), and resisting, delaying or obstructing a peace officer (§ 148; count 9). In addition, the jury found true the following special allegations: in committing the count 1 offense, appellant personally used a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)) and personally and intentionally discharged a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)), and in committing the count 4 and count 7 offenses, appellant personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). The jury acquitted appellant of shooting a firearm at an occupied motor vehicle (§ 246; count 3) and assault with a firearm on Nakisha Warwick (§ 245, subd. (a)(2); count 5).
The court imposed a prison term of 25 years, consisting of the five-year upper term on the count 1 substantive offense and 20 years on the accompanying discharging a firearm enhancement. The court imposed concurrent three-year upper terms on each of counts 6 and 8; stayed imposition of sentence on the count 1 personal use of a firearm enhancement (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)) pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivision (f); and imposed, but stayed pursuant to section 654, the following upper terms: on count 2, three years; on count 4, four years on the substantive offense and 10 years on the accompanying enhancement; and on count 7, three years on the substantive offense and 10 years on the accompanying enhancement. On count 9, the court imposed a 365-day county jail term and awarded appellant credit for 365 days served.
Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Thereafter, on March 22, 2013, appellant, apparently in response to this court’s invitation to file supplemental briefing, filed a document entitled “FORMAL NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL BRIEFING VIA SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIMS,†in which he lists what he claims are “PREJUDICIAL TRIAL ERROR[S]†and, as best we can determine, faults appellate counsel for not raising these issues. We will treat this document as a supplemental brief and address appellant’s claims of error below.
On June 21, 2013, this court denied appellant’s request for an extension of time to file another supplemental brief, noting that appellant had previously been granted a total of 61 days to file such an additional supplemental brief. We affirm.
Comments on P .v. Lopez