P. v. Kiss

Filed 1/15/09 P. v. Kiss CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE COURT:*

Carla Vanessa Kiss (appellant) appeals from the judgment entered following her plea of no contest to second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, 211.)[1] She was sentenced to a prison term of two years after the trial court offered her an indicated sentence.

We appointed counsel to represent her on this appeal.

After examination of the record, counsel filed an Opening Brief, in which no issues are raised.

On October 23, 2008, we advised appellant that she had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that she wished us to consider.

No response has been received to date.

During the plea proceedings, trial counsel stipulated that the preliminary hearing testimony established a factual basis for her no contest plea. The preliminary hearing evidence established that at about 9:00 p.m. on September 9, 2007, at Parthenia Street and Yolanda Avenue in Northridge, the victim, 16-year-old M.C., was walking down the street. A car pulled up, and appellant got out and demanded M.C.s purse. M.C. replied that the purse contained nothing valuable. Appellant punched M.C. in the face. The women struggled over M.C.s purse, and appellant wrest the purse away. Appellant got into the car with the purse, and the car drove off.

Later, appellant was arrested and M.C.s purse was recovered. The following day, M.C. identified appellant as the robber in a six-pack photographic identification procedure. A bystander also witnessed the robbery.

The probation report indicated that appellant had just turned age 18. Her juvenile history consisted of contacts with law enforcement for unlawfully taking a vehicle (Veh. Code,  10851, subd. (a)) and grand theft from the person and battery ( 487, 242/243). Appellant had a third contact for unlawfully taking a vehicle that was not filed. Appellants juvenile contacts had resulted in orders of home on probation. Appellant lived with her mother. At the time of the instant robbery, she was home on probation following a previous purse-snatching.

Appellant was unemployed and had not finished high school. She had violence in her background. She was depressed, was diagnosed tentatively with posttraumatic stress syndrome (PTSD) resulting from early childhood sexual abuse, and was a polysubstance abuser. She had previously engaged in prostitution to support her drug dependence. In jail, appellant had participated in dual-diagnosis rehabilitation.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellants attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

The judgment is affirmed.

Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

* BOREN, P. J., ASHMANN-GERST, J., CHAVEZ, J.

[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.