P. v. Felix
Filed 6/22/06 P. v. Felix CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALFREDO FELIX, Defendant and Appellant. | B187415 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA 279418) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Elizabeth Harris, Commissioner. Affirmed.
William D. Farber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * * * * *
Alfredo Felix appeals his conviction for second degree robbery. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).
Counts 1 and 2 of the information charged appellant with committing second degree robbery and receiving stolen property on February 24, 2005. Count 3 alleged second degree robbery on February 17, 2005. The information also alleged that a principal personally used a firearm, as to counts 1 and 3; the crimes in all three counts were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang; and appellant had previously been convicted of a serious felony, for which he had served a prison term. When the case was called for a preliminary hearing, appellant pled no contest to count 3, plus firearms use and one prison prior. The remaining charges were dismissed pursuant to a plea bargain.
Appellant was sentenced to a total of 16 years in state prison. The sentence is based on the upper term of five years for second degree robbery, plus 10 years for firearms use, plus one year for the prison prior.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. His appointed counsel filed a Wende opening brief, raising no issues. Appellant was notified that he could file his own brief with this court. He has not done so.
We are satisfied from our examination of the record that appellant's attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities, and that no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
FLIER, J.
We concur:
COOPER, P. J. BOLAND, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Apartment Manager Attorneys.
