P. v. Anderson
Filed 10/29/09 P. v. Anderson CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD MAURICE ANDERSON, JR., Defendant and Appellant. | C061473 (Super. Ct. No. 08F02139) |
This is an appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).
Defendant Richard Maurice Anderson, Jr. and codefendant Mark E. Kennedy were charged in a series of robberies. The preliminary hearing showed that on November 3, 2007, January 4, 2008, and March 13, 2008, defendant, using a gun, robbed or attempted to rob a total of five people who responded to an ad on Craigslist to buy a Buick. Defendant told the police he used a fake gun, and was sorry for what he did, and although a real gun was used in one robbery, another person used that gun.
Defendant entered into a plea bargain in exchange for an agreed prison sentence of 16 years and the dismissal of some counts. He pled no contest to two counts of robbery -- one committed on November 3, 2007, and one committed on January 4, 2008, -- and admitted the personal use of a firearm. (Pen. Code, 211, 12022.53, subd. (b).) Defendant agreed the facts of the dismissed counts could be considered at sentencing and for purposes of restitution. Finally, the parties agreed that a separate misdemeanor case against defendant would result in a concurrent jail sentence.
At sentencing, the trial court imposed a state prison sentence consisting of the upper term of five years on one robbery count, 10 years for the firearm enhancement, and an additional year (one-third the midterm) on the other robbery count, for a total of 16 years. A concurrent misdemeanor jail sentence was imposed, and the trial court ordered restitution to specified victims. The remaining counts were dismissed.
Defendant timely appealed, but the trial court denied his request for a certificate of probable cause.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed
NICHOLSON , J.
We concur:
SIMS , Acting P. J.
RAYE , J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
