P. v. Carter
Filed 1/9/13 P.
v. Carter CA2/4
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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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.
JIMMIE L. CARTER,
Defendant
and Appellant.
B238232
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. MA052761)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
County, John Murphy, Judge.
Affirmed.
Marilee Marshall & Associates,
Inc., and Christine Aros, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
After a jury found defendant Jimmie L.
Carter guilty of robbery (§ 211),
with the finding that a principal was armed with a firearm (§ 12022, subd.
(a)(1)), a bench trial was conducted on allegations regarding a prior
conviction. The trial court found that
defendant had been convicted in 1998 of robbery, denied his oral
motion, and sentenced him to a 17-year state prison term. We affirm.
The evidence at trial established that
defendant and Wayne Jones committed a robbery at Camacho Auto Sales in Lancaster on May 7, 2011.
purchased a car from the business, came to the establishment to make a payment
on his car. After he left, Jones
entered, and pointing a gun at the receptionist, took between $800 and
$1,000. As the robbery took place,
defendant circled the area in his car several times. After taking the money, Jones exited and
entered the passenger side of defendant’s car which drove off. All of these events were videotaped.
Several days later, law enforcement
arrested defendant and Jones in defendant’s car. The car was eventually taken to one of
Camacho’s lots. Subsequently, two
Camacho Auto Sales employees (a licensed recovery agent and a repossession
agent) searched the car and found, hidden in the back of the passenger seat,
the gun Jones had used in the robbery.
In the bench trial, the People
produced a certified copy of a section 969b packet regarding defendant’s 1998
robbery conviction. The packet included
a photograph of the convicted individual that the trial court found “is the Mr.
Carter who is here before the court.†In
addition, Deputy Sheriff Ronald Ducat, a trained latent print examiner who had
examined more than one thousand sets of fingerprints, testified that he
compared a set of defendant’s prints to the prints in the packet and concluded
that “[t]hey are one and the same person.â€
Based upon this evidence, the trial court found that defendant was the
individual identified in the packet.
After review of the record, defendant’s
court-appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief asking this court to
review the record independently pursuant to People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.
Thereafter, defendant filed two
in which he raised three contentions:
(1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his robbery conviction on a
theory of aiding and abetting; (2) the trial court erred when, over defense
counsel’s objection, it permitted the prosecution to introduce into evidence
the gun that had been discovered in defendant’s car which Jones had used to
commit the robbery; and (3) the evidence is insufficient to sustain the trial
court’s finding that defendant had suffered the 1998 robbery conviction.
We have examined the entire record and
are satisfied that no arguable issues (including the three raised by defendant)
exist, and that defendant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the
record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment
entered against him in this case. (
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.
statutory references are to the Penal Code.
13 Cal.4th 497.
