P. v. Faulkner

















Filed 1/16/13 P.
v. Faulkner CA2/2

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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 TWO




>

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TRAVION FAULKNER, Defendant and Appellant.

B242133 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA393353)

THE COURT:href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">*



Appellant
Travion Faulkner (Faulkner) appeals from the judgment entered following his
plea of no contest to second degree
robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211.href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="">>[1] The trial court sentenced Faulkner to the low
term of two years in state prison and then doubled the sentence to four years
based on Faulkner’s admission that had a prior strike pursuant to sections
1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d) and 667, subdivisions (b) through (i)
based on an adjudication under section 211 when he was a juvenile. He received 138 days of actual credit and 20
good time/work time days for a total presentence credit of 158 days.

Faulkner
was accused of robbing a man of a cell phone.
Before he pleaded no contest, Faulkner filed a motion to suppress the
cell phone as evidence on the theory that it was taken from his pants pocket
during an unlawful search. At the
hearing, Los Angeles Police Officer Fernando Tenorio testified that on the
night of January
26, 2012, he and a partner saw two men
fitting the description of suspects given by a victim who had been robbed of a
cell phone missing the back cover.
Officer Tenorio and his partner approached the suspects and said they
were conducting an investigation.
Faulkner said, “Okay, go ahead and check me.” Officer Tenorio conducted a pat down search and
found a cell phone in Faulkner’s pants pocket.
The cell phone was missing the back cover. Defense
counsel argued that when Faulkner said “check me,” he did not give consent
to a search. The trial court disagreed
and denied the motion.

Counsel
was appointed to represent Faulkner in connection with this appeal. After examination of the record, counsel
filed an “Opening Brief” in which no
arguable issues were raised. On September 24, 2012, we advised Faulkner that he had 30 days within which to personally
submit any contentions or issues for us to consider. No response has been received to date.

After
reviewing the entire record, we conclude that it provides a factual basis to
support the conviction. Testimony given
by Officer Tenorio at the hearing on the motion to suppress evidence
established that Faulkner consented to being searched and his Fourth Amendment
rights were not violated.

We
are satisfied that Faulkner’s attorney has fully complied with his
responsibilities and that no arguable
issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

The
judgment is affirmed.

NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.