P. v. Jovel

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 1/30/14  P. v. Jovel CA2/8

 

 

 

 

 

 

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE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  This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

 

 

 
>

THE PEOPLE,                           Plaintiff and Respondent,               v.   OSCAR JOVEL,                           Defendant and Appellant.

B248670         (Los Angeles County       Super. Ct. No. BA402622)

 

 

 

            APPEAL from a judgment of the href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">Superior Court of Los Angeles County.  Robert Perry, Judge.  Affirmed.

 

            Ann Krausz, under appointment by the
Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.

 

            No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

 

 

* * * * * * * * * *

            Defendant
Oscar Jovel was charged by information
with second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), as well as deadly weapon allegations
(§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)).  Defendant timely
appeals his judgment of conviction and sentence. 

We appointed
appellate counsel to represent
him.  Appointed counsel filed a brief
pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) in which no issues were raised.  The brief included a declaration from counsel
that she reviewed the record and sent a letter to defendant explaining her
evaluation of the record.  Counsel
further declared that she advised defendant of his right, under >Wende, to submit a supplemental
brief.  Defendant did not file any href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">supplemental brief with this court. 

            The
jury trial took place over three days, and the testimony revealed the following
facts:  On September 13, 2012, at approximately 1:00 a.m., Jose Beltran was
walking in the Koreatown neighborhood of Los Angeles, on his
way home from work.  He was approached by
two men and a woman, on the corner of 8th Street and Berendo Street.  Beltran identified defendant as one of the
men who approached him. 

            The
woman asked Beltran if he had any cigarettes. 
Beltran said that he did not have any, but defendant asked him, again,
whether he had any cigarettes.  Defendant
then tried to grab Beltran’s cell phone, but Beltran held onto it, and the two
struggled over the phone.  Eventually,
defendant was able to take the phone’s headphones from Beltran.  Defendant handed the headphones to the other
man, who tried to return the headphones to Beltran.  However, defendant then stabbed Beltran in
the side, and the headphones were not returned to him.  The three people walked over to a nearby
apartment building, and Beltran called police. 
Beltran testified that his attacker did not have any tattoos. 

            Los
Angeles Police Officers Anthony Kong and Dustin Contreras responded to the
scene, and were directed to an apartment complex by Beltran.  Officer Kong saw the suspects through the
glass door to the apartment’s lobby, however, the suspects were unable to see
officers from the lobby.  While the
responding officers were waiting for backup, the suspects walked out of the
lobby.  Officers Kong and Contreras were
able to arrest defendant and another man, but the woman got away.  Officer Maurice Brunel searched defendant,
and found a folding knife in his front pants pocket.  Beltran identified defendant as the person
who took his headphones and stabbed him. 


            Defendant
testified that he was at the apartment complex to see a friend about a job
cleaning a stove at a restaurant.  He had
the knife, which was broken, to scrape grease off the stove.  Defendant had a three dots tattoo on his
face, as well as a “13” on his face, and a cross on his neck.  He did not have the “13” at the time of the
robbery, but had received it in jail.  He
did not rob anyone on September 13, 2012.   

            Defendant was found guilty, and the
deadly weapon allegation was found true. 
Defendant was sentenced to four years in
prison, consisting of the midterm of three years for the robbery, with a one-year
enhancement under Penal Code section 12022, subdivision (b)(1).  He was given a total of 208 days of custody
credit, consisting of 181 days of actual custody credits and 27 days of
good time/work time credits. 

We have examined the entire
record, consisting of one volume of a clerk’s transcript and one volume of a
reporter’s transcript, and are satisfied that appointed counsel fully complied
with her responsibilities and that no arguable appellate issues exist.  (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106;
Wende,
supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.)  We therefore
affirm judgment below.

DISPOSITION

            The
judgment is affirmed.

 

                                                                                    GRIMES,
J.

 

 

We concur:

 

                        BIGELOW, P. J.       

 

 

 

                        FLIER, J.