P. v. Hernandez
Filed 12/4/08 P. v. Hernandez CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CURTIS JAMES HERNANDEZ, Defendant and Appellant. | 2d Crim. No. B207813 (Super. Ct. No. SA064144) (Los Angeles County) |
Curtis James Hernandez appeals from the judgment after the trial court found him guilty of second degree robbery of a Subway restaurant. (Pen Code, 211.)[1] The trial court found that appellant had suffered two prior felony convictions within the meaning of the Three Strikes Law ( 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12, subds. (a)(d)), and granted the prosecution's motion to strike one of the prior strike enhancements. The trial court also found that appellant had suffered two serious felony convictions ( 667. subd. (a)(1)) and four prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). At the sentencing hearing, the trial court struck the prior prison term enhancements and sentenced appellant to 20 years state prison. Appellant was ordered to a $200 restitution fine ( 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $200 parole revocation fine ( 1202.45), $150 victim restitution ( 1202. 4, subd. (f)), and a $20 court security fee ( 1465.8).
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised.
On October 3, 2008, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's appointed counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable
issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
YEGAN, J.
We concur:
GILBERT, P.J.
PERREN, J.
Robert P. O'Neill, Judge
Superior Court County of Los Angeles
______________________________
Athena Shudde, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1]Unless otherwise stated, all statutory references are to the Penal Code.
