P. v. McCoy
Filed 9/27/07 P. v. McCoy 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BARRY McCOY, Defendant and Appellant. | B195463 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA302955) |
TO THE COURT:*
Barry McCoy appeals from the judgment entered following a court trial that resulted in his conviction of attempted second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 667/221)[1]arising out of the following facts. On May 17, 2006, appellant approached Sean Little in downtown Los Angeles and demanded change. Little said he did not have any money. Appellant called Little a liar, screamed in his face and again demanded change. Appellant took two steps away, turned around and punched Little twice in the chest. Appellant asked Little if he was going to do anything about it and said something derogatory to Little. Little was fearful that appellant was going to take his money. Appellant was sentenced to 32 months, consisting of the low term doubled. We appointed counsel to represent him on this appeal.
After examination of the record, counsel filed a Statement by Counsel on Appeal Pursuant to People v. Wendein which no issues were raised.
On July 20, 2007, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. On August 17, 2007, appellant filed a response complaining of false arrest; that the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department made false statements in a letter to appellant; that he was misdiagnosed; that his attorney lied to him and refused to investigate his case; and that the trial court imposed an illegal 16 month enhancement. Appellants claims are not supported by the record. (People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 267 [an appellate court should not find ineffective assistance of counsel unless all relevant facts are developed in the record].) Instead, we conclude that the trial courts judgment is supported by the evidence. (People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 667 [the test of whether evidence is sufficient to support a conviction is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt].)
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.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.
Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line attorney.
* BOREN, P. J., DOI TODD, J., ASHMANN-GERST, J.
[1] All subsequent code section references are to the Penal Code.
