P. v. Guenthard
Filed 4/24/13 P. v. Guenthard 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.
RYAN STERLING GUENTHARD,
Defendant and Appellant.
B241315
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No.
KA096787-01)
APPEAL from a judgment of
the Superior Court of
County, Mike Camacho, Judge.
Affirmed.
Caroline
R. Hahn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance
for Respondent.
Appellant Ryan Sterling Guenthard was
charged by information with two counts of second
degree robbery (Pen. Code § 211).
that he personally used a firearm within the meaning of sections 1203.06,
subdivision (a)(1), 12022.5, subdivision (a), and 12022.53, subdivision
(b). Appellant rejected a pretrial offer
of 12 years. At trial, two witnesses
identified appellant as the man who had robbed a Gamestop store on January
23, 2012. The witnesses, two clerks working in the
store at the time, both were aware a robbery was taking place, but only one saw
the gun. The court denied a motion to
dismiss count two for lack of evidence.
The court granted a defense motion to dismiss the gun use allegation pertaining
to count two. The jury found appellant
guilty of both counts and found the gun use allegation true. The court denied a defense motion for a new
trial. The court imposed a sentence of
13 years consisting of: two years (the
low term) for count one, one year (one-third the mid-term) for count two to run
consecutively, and 10 years under section 12022.53, subdivision (b) for the
firearm use. A sentence of four years
was imposed under section 12022.5, subdivision (a) and stayed. Appellant was given 35 days of custody
credit.
After
appellant filed a timely notice of appeal,
this court appointed counsel to represent him.
On October 29, 2012, counsel filed a brief in which the
only issue raised was correction of custody credits. On November 28, 2012, the brief was stricken pursuant to
counsel’s request. Thereafter, counsel
submitted a motion to the trial court to correct custody credits. The court granted the motion and the abstract
of judgment was amended to reflect 100 days of credit. After examining the record, counsel filed a
brief raising no issues, but asking this court to independently review the
record on appeal pursuant to
436, 441-442. (See Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 264.) On November 28, 2012, we sent a letter advising appellant
he had 30 days within which to submit by brief or letter any
court to consider. No reply was
received.
This court has
examined the entire record in accordance with People v. Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d 436 and is satisfied that 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:
EPSTEIN, P. J.
SUZUKAWA, J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] Undesignated statutory references are
to the Penal Code.
