P. v. Fernandez
Filed 2/21/13 P. v. Fernandez CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 FOUR
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
GERRADO DEMETRIUS
FERNANDEZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
B238774
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. VA115518)
APPEAL from a
judgment of the Superior Court of
County, Laura R. Walton and Peter Espinoza, Judges. Affirmed.
David M. Thompson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance
for Respondent.
______________________________
On February 28,
2011, a jury
found appellant guilty of five counts of second
degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211).
As to count 2, the jury found true that a principal was armed with a firearm
(§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)). As to counts 3
and 5, it found true that appellant personally used a firearm (§ 12022.52,
subd. (b)). The jury found not true that
appellant personally used a firearm as to count 1. Appellant filed a motion for new trial (§
1181), challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support the firearm
allegations. The motion was heard and
denied on November 7, 2011.
Subsequently, the matter was transferred for consolidated sentencing
with another criminal case involving
appellant. With respect to the
convictions in this matter, appellant was sentenced to 12 years in state
prison.
After appellant filed a timely notice
of appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent him. After examining the record, appointed
appellate counsel filed a brief raising no issues, but asking this court to
independently review the record on appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442. (See Smith
v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 264.) On October 5, 2012, we sent a letter advising appellant
he had 30 days within which to submit by brief or letter any contentions or
arguments he wished this court to consider.
No reply was received.
As to count 2, the victim testified
she was sitting in her truck when a man holding a handgun approached her and
said, “Give me your money.†Appellant
opened the passenger door to her truck, and asked her for her “gold,†which the
first man clarified to mean “like your necklace.†After she said she had no gold, appellant
grabbed her purse and left. As to counts
3, and 5, the victims testified they saw appellant wield a handgun during the
respective robberies. The testimony of a
single witness is sufficient to sustain a jury’s finding on a firearm allegation. (People
v. Watts (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1259.)
This court has examined the entire
record in accordance with People v. Wende,
supra, 25 Cal.3d at pages 441-442,
and is satisfied appellant’s attorney has fully complied with the
responsibilities of counsel, and no arguable
issues exist. Accordingly, we affirm
the judgment of conviction.
The
judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
MANELLA,
J.
We concur:
WILLHITE, Acting P. J.
SUZUKAWA, J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1]
further statutory citations are to the Penal Code.
