P. v. Mosley
Filed 8/2/12 P. v. Mosley CA2/1
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
ONE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JAMAL MOSLEY,
Defendant and Appellant.
B237496
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. MA047243)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior
Court of
County. Christopher
Estes, Judge. Appeal dismissed.
Ann Krausz,
under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
__________________________________
>
On October 9, 2009, Jamal Mosley went to
a 7-Eleven store and approached Jegden Singh, an employee of the 7-Eleven
store. Mosley demanded that Singh give
him money and a cellular telephone. Mosley
was holding a screwdriver when he made his demands. Mosley took $300 and a cellular telephone
from Singh.
On October 10, 2009, Stephen Iascone
found a cellular telephone in the grass outside his apartment. Iascone dialed a number he found in the phone
and provided information about where the phone could be picked up. Someone from the sheriff’s department came to
retrieve the cellular telephone. When
Mosley learned that Iascone had turned over the phone to the sheriff’s
department, Mosley told Iascone that he was going to kill Iascone and “burn the
place down” (the apartment complex) with Iascone’s children in it.
A September 14, 2010 information filed
by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office charged Mosley with the
Code, § 211;
title="">
count 1), and criminal threats made to Iascone (§ 422; count 2). The information alleged that Mosley
personally used a deadly weapon (the screwdriver) in the commission of the
robbery, within the meaning of section 12022, subdivision (b)(1). The information also alleged that Mosley had
been convicted of two prior felonies which qualified as serious or violent
felonies under the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds.
(a)-(d)), and also qualified as serious felonies under section 667, subdivision
(a)(1).
On September 28, 2011, Mosley waived his
constitutional rights and pleaded no
contest to both counts charged in the information (robbery and criminal
threats). He also admitted all of the
special allegations in the information, which are set forth above. The trial court sentenced him to 22 years and
four months in prison. On count 1 for
robbery, the court imposed the upper term of five years for the offense,
doubled to 10 years under the Three Strikes law, plus a consecutive one-year
term for the deadly weapon enhancement.
On count 2 for criminal threats, the court imposed one-third the middle
term, or eight months, for the offense, doubled to one year and four months
under the Three Strikes law. The court
also imposed two consecutive five-year terms for Mosley’s prior convictions
under section 667, subdivision (a)(1).
The court further imposed fines and fees under sections 1202.4,
subdivision (b), and 1465.8, and Government Code section 70373.
Mosley filed a timely appeal, but
did not seek or obtain a certificate of probable cause. In his Notice of Appeal, Mosley checked the
box indicating that, “This appeal is based on the sentence or other matters
that occurred after the plea and do not affect its validity.” After examination of the record, counsel
filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to review the
record independently pursuant to People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. On April 12, 2012, we advised Mosley
that he personally had 30 days to submit any contentions or issues he wished us
to consider. We also directed his
appointed counsel to send the record and opening brief to Mosley immediately. To date, we have received no response.
We have examined
the entire record and are satisfied that Mosley’s counsel has complied with her
responsibilities and that no arguable
issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109-110;
Mosley’s no-contest plea and failure to obtain a certificate of probable
cause limit the potential scope of his appeal to “[g]rounds that arose after
entry of the plea and do not affect the plea’s validity” or “[t]he denial of a
motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b); see §
1237.5.) The record does not demonstrate
the existence of any such issue.
DISPOSITION
The appeal
is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
CHANEY,
J.
We concur:
ROTHSCHILD,
Acting P. J.
JOHNSON,
J.
below, this statement of facts is taken from the transcript of the preliminary
hearing.
unless otherwise indicated.
