P. v. Lauri
Filed 1/26/09 P. v. Lauri CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL ALLEN LAURI, Defendant and Appellant. | C058623 (Super. Ct. No. 06F07343) |
At around 12:30 a.m., 63-year-old Dennis Seefeldt heard a knock on the door of his Carmichael apartment. Seeing nothing through the peephole, he opened the door a few inches and found two guns pointed at him. Two men, one armed with a shotgun and the other armed with a .45 caliber semiautomatic handgun, pushed their way into the apartment, forced Seefeldt to the floor, and bound his hands behind his back. The robbers demanded money, drugs, and guns as they ransacked the apartment and searched through Seefeldts pockets. They took two handguns, Seefeldts coin collection, and three cell phones. Seefeldt identified defendant as the robber wielding the shotgun.
A jury convicted defendant of first degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211) and found he personally used a firearm in the commission of robbery (Pen. Code, 12022.53, subd. (b)). Finding that defendant has served two prior prison terms (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)), the court sentenced him to 18 years in prison, ordered $5,500 victim restitution, imposed various fines and fees, and awarded 641 days of credit (558 days custody and 83 days conduct).
Defendant appeals, and we appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks us to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant.
We have undertaken an independent examination of the record and have found no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
SCOTLAND , P. J.
We concur:
HULL, J.
BUTZ , J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.
