P. v. Carter
Filed 4/2/13 P. v. Carter CA2/2
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
WILLIAM CARTER,
Defendant and Appellant.
B243415
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. TA105249)
THE COURT:
A jury
found appellant William Carter guilty of second
degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211),
subd. (b)(1)(C)). The trial court found
that appellant had admitted to suffering a prior strike conviction (§§ 1170.12,
subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i)), and serving four prior prison terms (§
667.5, subd. (b)). Appellant was
sentenced to 24 years in state prison,
which consisted of the upper term of five years for the
for the prior strike conviction, plus 10 years for the gang enhancement, plus
four years for the prior prison term enhancements (one year for each prior
prison term). Appellant appealed the
judgment, and this court determined there was
trial court’s finding that appellant had admitted the priors alleged against
him. We vacated appellant’s sentence and
remanded the case for a new trial on sentencing. (People
v. Pious (June 23, 2011,
B223750) [nonpub. opn.].)
On remand,
the trial court held a bench trial and
determined the evidence was sufficient to support the findings that appellant
had suffered one prior felony strike conviction (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d),
667, subds. (b)-(i)), and four prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd.
(b)). The trial court sentenced
appellant to the same 24-year sentence, and this current appeal followed.
We
appointed counsel to represent
appellant on appeal. After examination
of the record, counsel filed an “Opening Brief†in which no arguable issues
were raised. On December 24, 2012, we advised appellant that he
had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he
wished us to consider. No response has
been received to date.
We have examined the entire record
and conclude that it provides a factual basis to support the sentence. At the new sentencing trial, Lynda Johnson,
an experienced paralegal for the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office,
testified that she is familiar with “priors packets†prepared by the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, also known as “969B packets.†She reviewed People’s exhibit 2, a 969B
packet for appellant, which contained four abstracts of judgments for
convictions suffered by appellant showing:
(1) a felony conviction on September 4, 2002, for possession of a
controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11350,
subdivision (a), with a sentence of one year four months (case No. TA066314);
(2) a felony conviction on May 4, 1999,
for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of former section
12021, subdivision (a)(1), with a sentence of two years (case
No. TA101215); (3) a felony conviction on December 4, 1996, for possession
for sale of cocaine in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11351, with
a sentence of two years (case No. YA027843); and (4) a felony conviction on
April 8, 1994, for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of
former section 12021, with a sentence of one year four months (case No.
TA029751).
Ms. Johnson also reviewed
additional exhibits: People’s exhibit 3,
which contained certified documents from the Department of Justice including a
fingerprint card for appellant and a disposition showing an arrest date of
February 12, 1992; People’s exhibit 4, which contained a certified juvenile
petition filed in case No. YJ00938 alleging that appellant was arrested on
February 12, 1992, for assaulting a peace officer with a firearm in violation
of section 245, subdivision (a)(2), a felony, and a firearm enhancement
pursuant to section 12022.5, subdivision (a); and People’s exhibit 5, a minute
order sustaining the petition and placing appellant in the Camp Community
Placement Program for a minimum of 10 months.
Because there was a dispute as to
whether appellant had been in custody during the five years prior to his current
offense, the People subsequently had admitted into evidence People’s exhibit 6,
a certified court document for case No. YA072101, which showed appellant had a
felony conviction on June 17, 2008, for a violation of Health and Safety Code
section 11360, subdivision (a), with a sentence of two years.
Wu Liang Huang, a fingerprint
identification expert, testified that she took appellant’s fingerprints on the
first day of the new sentencing trial and compared them with the fingerprint
cards in appellant’s 969B priors packet and with the fingerprint card in
People’s exhibit 3, and determined that they all matched.
We are satisfied that appellant’s
attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE
OFFICIAL REPORTS.
further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
