P. v. Barajas
Filed 2/10/10 P. v. Barajas CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERTO BARAJAS, Defendant and Appellant. | B216735 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA084547) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Tia Fisher, Judge. Affirmed.
Jonathan B. Steiner and Jill Ishida, under appointments by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Roberto Barajas appeals from the judgment entered following a jury
trial in which he was convicted of one count of second degree robbery (Pen. Code,
211) with the finding that during the commission of the offense he personally used a firearm, a handgun, within the meaning of Penal Code section12022.53, subdivision (b). The jury deadlocked on two additional counts of second degree robbery and a mistrial was declared on these counts. He was sentenced to prison for 15 years, consisting of the upper term of five years plus ten years for the weapon enhancement.
The evidence relative to the robbery conviction established that on August 19, 2008, at approximately 2:20 a.m., Sheyrell Kiehlmeier was working as a cashier at a Shell gas station on North Garey Avenue in Pomona when appellant placed a bag of trail mix peanuts on the counter. After Ms. Kiehlmeier scanned the item to determine the price, appellant said, Never mind. Just give me your money. Appellant was holding a gun and said, Dont make me shoot you. Ms. Kiehlmeier was in fear and opened the cash register and put the money on the counter. Appellant picked up the money and left. Almost $500 was taken. Ms. Kiehlmeier knew the difference between an automatic and a revolver and saw appellant playing with the cartridge clip that housed the bullets. When appellant pulled out the clip, she saw bullets in it. Ms. Kiehlmeier thereafter identified appellant in a photo lineup and in court.
At sentencing, the court found, based on appellants extensive criminal history, that a high term was appropriate. The Peoples motion to dismiss counts 1 and 2 and to strike two one-year priors was granted.[1]
After review of the record, appellants court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.
On November 10, 2009, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist and that appellant has, by virtue of counsels compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
WILLHITE, Acting P.J.
We concur:
MANELLA, J.
SUZUKAWA, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] After the verdict was reached, the People failed to advise the court there were allegations of prior convictions pending and no waiver of a jury trial was taken from appellant. The People requested that the priors be used for aggravation at sentencing.
