Fear Not Law Articles: P. v. Graham

P. v. Graham

Filed 8/18/11 P. v. Graham CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RAYMOND DWIGHT GRAHAM,

Defendant and Appellant.

G044623

(Super. Ct. No. 05CF0277)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, William R. Froeberg, Judge. Affirmed.
Catherine White, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *
In a previous opinion we affirmed the conviction of defendant Raymond D. Graham and two co-defendants on multiple counts arising out of a home invasion robbery (People v. Graham (Jan. 30, 2009, G037997 [nonpub. opn.] pp. 2-3.), but we remanded for resentencing. After resentencing defendant and his co-defendants appealed again. We again remanded for sentencing, specifically ordering that the sentence for the street terrorism count (count 13) should be stayed under Penal Code section 654. (People v. Graham (Aug. 27, 2010, G042419) [nonpub. opn.] p. 3.) On remand the court stayed the sentence on count 13. Defendant received two consecutive 15 year to life sentences.
After he filed this appeal we appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel filed a brief that set forth the facts of the case and the disposition. She did not argue against defendant but advised the court she had not found any issues to present on his behalf. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was given 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf. That period has passed and we have received no communication from him. We examined the entire record to determine if any arguable issues were present and found none. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441- 442; People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 111-112.)
The judgment is affirmed.

RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J.

WE CONCUR:

FYBEL, J.

IKOLA, J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

Description	In a previous opinion we affirmed the conviction of defendant Raymond D. Graham and two co-defendants on multiple counts arising out of a home invasion robbery (People v. Graham (Jan. 30, 2009, G037997 [nonpub. opn.] pp. 2-3.), but we remanded for resentencing. After resentencing defendant and his co-defendants appealed again. We again remanded for sentencing, specifically ordering that the sentence for the street terrorism count (count 13) should be stayed under Penal Code section 654. (People v. Graham (Aug. 27, 2010, G042419) [nonpub. opn.] p. 3.) On remand the court stayed the sentence on count 13. Defendant received two consecutive 15 year to life sentences. After he filed this appeal we appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel filed a brief that set forth the facts of the case and the disposition. She did not argue against defendant but advised the court she had not found any issues to present on his behalf. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was given 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf. That period has passed and we have received no communication from him. We examined the entire record to determine if any arguable issues were present and found none. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441- 442; People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 111-112.) The judgment is affirmed.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.