P. v. Preza
Filed 5/5/10 P. v. Preza CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LOUIS JESSE PREZA, Defendant and Appellant. | B215074 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA337987) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Anne H. Egerton, Judge. Affirmed.
Rita L. Swenor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_______________________
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Louis Jesse Preza appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of insurance fraud (Ins. Code, 1871.4, subd. (a)(1)) and attempted perjury (Pen. Code, 118, subd. (a), 664). No meritorious issues have been identified following a review of the record by defendants appointed counsel and our own independent review of the record. We affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant was employed by the City of Burbank as a food server and dish washer for the elderly. Defendant filed a workers compensation claim for having suffered a disabling work-related back injury, which the city received in October 2005. In a deposition in January 2006, defendant testified that, as a result of hurting his back while lifting a rack of silverware on August 2, 2005, he suffered continuous and severe pain, which prevented him from performing even the simplest physical activities. Videotapes of defendant taken in December 2005, showed him working under the hood and underneath the chassis of his truck, as well as using his arms and upper body to push the truck down his driveway and into the street.
After a jury found defendant guilty as charged, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on five years formal probation on count 1, on condition he serve 60 days in county jail and 60 days on electronic monitoring. Defendant was also ordered to perform 360 hours of community service. The court ordered defendant to pay a $5,000 fine, a $30 criminal conviction assessment, $20 security fee, a DNA penalty assessment, and a $200 restitution fine. A probation revocation fine was imposed and suspended pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.44. Restitution to the victim, the City of Burbank, was to be determined at a later hearing. The sentence on count 2 was stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654.
DISCUSSION
Defendant timely appealed and we appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On December 28, 2009, we advised defendant he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. To date, we have received no response from defendant.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied defendants attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006)40 Cal.4th 106, 118-119; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
JACKSON, J.
We concur:
WOODS, Acting P. J.
ZELON, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.
Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line attorney.
