P. v. Buenrostro
Filed 1/5/10 P. v. Buenrostro CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MIGUEL ANGEL BUENROSTRO, Defendant and Appellant. | B216098 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA105176) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
John A. Torribio, Judge. Affirmed.
Sharon M. Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
______________________________
After Miguel Angel Buenrostro choked Mary Crail to death on April 2, 2008 and took her car, he was charged by information with murder (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a)) and grand theft automobile (Pen. Code, 487, subd. (d)(1)). It was further alleged that in committing the murder, Buenrostro had inflicted great bodily injury on Crail.
At trial, Buenrostro testified that on the night of the murder, he and Crail had consumed alcoholic drinks and then had sex. Afterwards, Crail repeatedly insulted defendant, and he lost control. Defendant did not realize what he had done until later, and he believed his drinks had been doctored with something because he had never before behaved that way. Buenrostro fled to Mexico in Crails car and was later arrested and returned to the United States.
A jury convicted Buenrostro as charged and found true the special allegation of great bodily injury. The trial court denied Buenrostro probation and sentenced him to state prison for a life term with a minimum term of 15 years for murder and a concurrent term of three years (the upper term) for grand theft automobile. Buenrostro received presentence custody credit of 596 days (398 actual days and 198 days of conduct credit). The court ordered Buenrostro to pay a $20 security assessment, and a $200 restitution fine. A parole revocation fine was imposed and suspended pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.45. This appeal followed.
We appointed counsel to represent Buenrostro on appeal. After examination of the record counsel filed an Opening Brief in which no issues were raised. On September 23, 2009, we advised Buenrostro he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. We have received no response to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied Buenrostros attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
WOODS, Acting P. J.
We concur:
ZELON, J.
JACKSON, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
