P. v. Matthews
Filed 9/5/13 P. v. Matthews CA2/5
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
FIVE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
MARKEISE MATTHEWS,
Defendant and Appellant.
B246278
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. YA085700)
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court
of
County, Victor L. Wright, Judge. Affirmed.
Richard B.
Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
>
Defendant,
Markeise Matthews, appeals after he pled orally and in writing no contest to a
single kidnapping count. (Pen. Code
§ section 207, subd. (a).) Eight other
felony counts were dismissed pursuant to the
with total presentence credits of 71 days and the following was also
imposed: a $240 section 1202.4,
subdivision (b)(1) restitution fine; a section 1202.45, subdivision (a) $240
parole restitution fine; a $40 section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1) court
security fee; and a $30 Government Code section 70373, subdivision (a(1)
criminal conviction assessment.
The
probation report indicates that on September
26, 2012, defendant accosted a 17-year-old victim in a doctor’s
office, forced her into a car and drove her away. On another occasion, October 8, 2012, he threatened to kill the victim
and her family. After school on October 8, 2012, once again, he
accosted the victim and forced her into a car driving her away against her
will. On this occasion, defendant used a
knife. On October 9, 2012, defendant threatened the victim with a
knife. The victim then finally notified
the police.
We
appointed counsel to represent
defendant. After examination of the
record, appellate counsel has filed a brief in which no issues are raised. Instead, appointed counsel has asked us to
independently review the entire record on appeal pursuant to
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442.
(See Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 264.) We advised defendant he had 30 days within
which to submit by brief or letter any contentions or argument he wished us to
consider. No response has been received.
We have examined the entire record in accordance with
Cal.3d at pages 441-442. Neither
appointed counsel nor defendant has identified any issue for our review. We agree with appointed appellate counsel
that no arguable issue exists on appeal.
The
judgment is affirmed.
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
TURNER,
P. J.
We concur:
MOSK, J.
KUMAR, J.
name="_ftn1" title=""> [1] Unless
otherwise noted, all future statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.
