P. v. Locklear
Filed 8/15/11 P. v. Locklear 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. RICKY LEE LOCKLEAR, Defendant and Appellant. | 2d Crim. No. B227966 (Super. Ct. No. TA111653) (Los Angeles County) |
Ricky Lee Locklear appeals the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of arson of an inhabited structure (Pen. Code,[1] § 451, subd. (b)). The jury also found true the allegation that appellant had suffered a prior serious or violent felony (§§ 667, subds. (b) - (i), 1170.12, subds. (a) - (d)). The trial court sentenced him to 16 years state prison.
On April 5, 2010, appellant went to his girlfriend Jennifer C.’s apartment. Jennifer C. called the police and claimed that appellant had hit her in the mouth with his fist.[2] Jennifer C. waited on the porch and walked down the street to talk to the police when they arrived. A few minutes later, Jennifer C. looked up and saw flames coming from her bedroom window. The police asked Jennifer C. to call appellant on her cell phone. A police officer who spoke to appellant on the phone testified that appellant told him he wanted to kill himself and would burn the building down. After the fire department arrived and extinguished the flames, appellant came out of the apartment and surrendered to the police.
An arson investigator testified that the fire had originated on a mattress in the bedroom and had likely been started with a flammable liquid. A plastic container of charcoal lighter was found in the bedroom. The investigator also testified that the fire had been intentionally set. Appellant was the only person in the apartment when the fire was started.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After counsel's examination of the record, she filed an opening brief raising no issues.
On April 25, 2011, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished to raise on appeal. We have not received a response.
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant’s attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
PERREN, J.
We concur:
YEGAN, Acting P.J.
COFFEE, J.
Eleanor J. Hunter, Judge
Superior Court County of Los Angeles
______________________________
Joy A. Maulitz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
