P. v. Ortiz

Filed 10/10/07 P. v. Ortiz CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

Ronald S. Coen, Judge. Affirmed.

Murray A. Rosenberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Appellant, Omar F. Ortiz, appeals from judgment entered following his guilty plea to second degree robbery (count III, Pen. Code 211)[1]and admission that he personally used a firearm in the commission of that offense ( 12022.53(b).)

In an information filed on December 26, 2006, appellant was initially charged with carjacking (count I, 215, subd. (a)), evading an officer, willful disregard (count II,

2800.2, subd. (a).) As to count I, it was further alleged that appellant personally used a firearm, a handgun. ( 12022.53, subd. (b), 1203.06, subd. (a)(1) As to count II, it was further alleged that a principal was armed in the commission of that offense. (12022, subd. (a)(1).)

On December 26, 2006, on respondents motion, the information was amended to add a violation of section 211, robbery, as count III. Appellant was then advised of his rights and pled guilty to count III and admitted the personal use allegation. Pursuant to the terms of a plea agreement, appellant was sentenced to the low term, 2 years, as to count III with an additional 10 years imposed pursuant to section 12022.53(b), for a total sentence of 12 years in state prison. Counts I and II were dismissed in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement.

Appellant filed a timely Notice of Appeal on June 6, 2007

We appointed counsel to represent appellant on this appeal. After examination of the record, on June 20, 2007, counsel filed an opening brief that contained an acknowledgment that he had been unable to find any arguable issues. On July 20, 2007, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. As of todays date, no supplemental documents have been filed by appellant.

Based on our examination of the entire record we are satisfied that appellants attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities, and that no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

COOPER, P. J.

We concur:

RUBIN, J.

FLIER, J.

Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.

Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line Lawyers.

[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.