P. v. Andrews
Filed 9/28/10 P. v.
Andrews 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NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
(Butte)
----
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
DOUGLAS ANTHONY ANDREWS,
Defendant and Appellant.
C064495
(Super.
Ct. No. CM031263)
This case comes to
us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.[1]
Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, we affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description
of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People
v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On August 9, 2009, defendant Douglas Anthony Andrews
and codefendant Justin Timothy Urness called for a Liberty taxi. When driver Robert Barth responded to the
fare, Urness got in the front seat and defendant got in the backseat. Urness then pulled out a knife comb and
placed it against Barth's ribs.
Defendant pulled out a black semiautomatic-type handgun (which was later
discovered to be an Airsoft pellet gun) and placed it at Barth's back. Defendant and Urness demanded Barth drive
them to another area where they demanded he give them money. They then ordered Barth to duct tape his
hands, stole his wallet, two cell phones and some personal items.
Later that afternoon, defendant and Urness
called for a Yellow Cab. As before, when
driver Kevin Langlois responded to the fare, Urness got in the front seat and defendant
got in the backseat. Urness pulled out
the knife comb and defendant pulled out the black semiautomatic-type handgun
and they demanded Langlois drive around.
They took money and cell phones from Langlois, then ordered Langlois to
duct tape his eyes and hands.
Defendant and Urness were charged with two
counts of first degree robbery (Pen.
Code, § 211)[2] and two counts of kidnapping
(§ 207, subd. (a)), with personal use of a deadly weapon, i.e, a knife (§ 12022,
subd. (b)(1)). Urness pled no contest to
both counts of robbery. Defendant pled
guilty to the robbery and kidnapping of Langlois, with the remaining counts and
enhancement allegation dismissed with a
It was agreed he would receive a maximum sentence of nine years four
months.
The trial court sentenced defendant to the
upper term of eight years for the kidnapping and a consecutive one year four
months for the robbery, for an aggregate term of nine years four months. The trial court also imposed various fines
and fees, including a $3,600 restitution fine and a $3,600 parole revocation
fine (suspended unless parole is revoked).
(§§ 1202.4, subd. (b), 1202.45.)
Defendant was awarded 207 actual days and 31 conduct days, for a total
of 238 days' custody credit.
(§ 2933.1)
Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5.)
The recent
amendments to section 4019 do not operate to modify defendant's entitlement to
credit, as he was committed for a serious felony. (§ 4019, subds. (b)(2) & (c)(2); Stats.
2009-2010, 3d Ex. Sess., ch. 28, § 50.)
Having undertaken an examination of the
entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition
more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NICHOLSON , Acting P. J.
We concur:
BUTZ , J.
MAURO , J.
Publication Courtesy of California
attorney referral.
Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information
provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] 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. (People v. 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.
[2] Further undesignated statutory references
are to the Penal Code.
