P. v. Barnes
Filed 5/30/07 P. v. Barnes 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Sutter)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RYAN ANDREW BARNES, Defendant and Appellant. | C052939 (Super. Ct. No. CRF052753) |
This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).
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. On January 9, 2007, defendant filed a document entitled, NOTICE AND MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME, THE APPOINTMENT OF NEW COUNSEL, AND PRODUCTION OF RECORDS. We denied defendants request for new counsel and for production of records and granted his request for an extension of time to file a supplemental opening brief to February 13, 2007. We have received no further communication from defendant.
Having reviewed the record as we are required to do, 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.) The facts are taken from the transcript of the preliminary hearing, which defendant stipulated could form the factual basis for his plea.
Defendant Ryan Andrew Barnes and W.B., a minor, entered a nail shop, and defendant pointed what appeared to be a gun at an employee and demanded money. When the employee said he did not have any money, defendant demanded money from three women in the shop. One gave him cash, and the other gave him her purse.
A few minutes later, defendant and W.B. entered a hair salon. This time W.B. carried the gun, which he pointed at a stylist and her customer and demanded their money. The stylist gave him her money, and the customer gave him her purse.
The gun was later determined to be an exact replica of a Walther PPKS pistol.
Defendant was charged by information with three counts of robbery (Pen. Code, 211; further unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code) and three counts of attempted robbery ( 664, 211). It was further alleged that defendant had a prior conviction for attempted lewdness with a child under the age of 14, a serious or violent felony within the meaning of the three strikes law ( 667, subd. (e)(1), 667.5, subd. (c), 1192.7, subd. (c)) and a serious felony within the meaning of the five-year enhancement statute. ( 667, subd. (a), 1192.7, subd. (c).)
Defendant requested substitute counsel early in the case. After the trial court denied defendants request, his counsel declared a doubt as to defendants mental competence, the proceedings were suspended, and a doctor was appointed to evaluate and report on defendant. ( 1368.) After finding defendant competent to stand trial, the court reinstated the proceedings.
A few weeks later, defendant again requested substitute counsel, and the court again denied the request. Thereafter, defendants counsel declared a doubt as to defendants mental competence, and the court declined to revisit the issue, noting that [t]heres no reason to believe that the status is any different at this point.
Defendant then moved to dismiss the counts related to the hair salon, arguing that the evidence indicates that [he] appeared on the scene only as a bystander. (See 995.) The court denied the motion.
Defendant ultimately pleaded guilty to three counts of second degree robbery, admitted suffering a prior conviction for attempting to commit a lewd or lascivious act with a child under the age of 14, and stipulated the prior conviction was a strike in exchange for a maximum term of 14 years in prison and dismissal of the remaining counts and enhancement allegation with a Harvey waiver.
Thereafter, defendant moved to withdraw his plea, arguing that he was too confused and that it happened too fast for him. The motion was denied.
The trial court refused to strike his prior conviction and sentenced him to 14 years in prison, consisting of 10 years (the upper term, doubled for the prior strike) for the robbery, and a consecutive two years (one-third the middle term, doubled for the prior strike) for each of the two additional robberies, with credit for 234 days (204 actual days and 30 good conduct). The court also imposed a $2,800 restitution fine ( 1202.4), a $2,800 parole revocation fine ( 1202.45), $160 in victim restitution ( 1202.4, subd. (f)), a $60 court security fee
( 1465.8), and a $44.50 booking fee (Gov. Code, 29550.2, subd. (a)).
Defendant appeals. His request for a certificate of probable cause was denied. ( 1237.5.)
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.
HULL, J.
We concur:
SCOTLAND, P.J.
CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.
