P. v. Morris
Filed 6/25/12 P. v. Morris CA2/4
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
FOUR
THE
PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ULIS
MORRIS,
Defendant and Appellant.
B233049
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BA377891)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
County, Frederick N. Wapner, Judge. Affirmed.
Carey D. Gorden, under appointment by
the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
A jury
convicted defendant Ulis Morris of one count of
The trial court sentenced him to three years in state prison. Defendant appeals from the judgment of
conviction.
The evidence at trial showed that on July
17, 2010,
Amy Langley-Larson (Larson) went bar hopping with a female friend in Hollywood.
Later, at a pizza parlor, her cell phone was taken from her table. Defendant and two other people (a Hispanic
man and a blonde woman) offered to help her get it back. After calling her cell phone, they led Larson
to the Gilbert Motel to obtain her phone. While there, the blonde girl said that Larson
could come up to their room to get her phone.
Larson refused, and started walking away. Defendant and the other two walked with her
to the corner, and then defendant grabbed Larson’s purse. Larson struggled, but was knocked to the
ground. Defendant fled with the
purse.
After reviewing the record,
appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed an
the record independently pursuant to People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.
On March 2, 2012, we advised appellant that he had 30
days within which to submit any contentions
or issues that he wished us to consider.
No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and
are satisfied that no arguable issues exist, and that appellant has, by virtue
of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure
and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review
of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith
v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)
The
judgment is affirmed.
WILLHITE, J.
We
concur:
EPSTEIN,
P. J.
SUZUKAWA,
J.
