P. v. Randazzle
Filed 2/16/06 P. v. Randazzle CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CODY RAYMON RANDAZZLE, Defendant and Appellant.
|
F047778
(Super. Ct. No. BF108402A)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. James M. Stuart, Judge.
Richard Jay Moller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, and Charles A. French, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
On March 1, 2005, appellant Cody Raymon Randazzle was found guilty after a jury trial of being a convicted felon in possession of live ammunition (Pen. Code, § 12316, subd. (b)). In a bifurcated hearing, the trial court found true allegations that Randazzle had a prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law and had served a prior prison term within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). The court sentenced Randazzle to prison for the midterm of two years which it doubled to four years pursuant to the three strikes law. The court added a consecutive one-year term for the prior prison term enhancement for a total sentence of five years. Randazzle was awarded applicable custody credits and ordered to pay a restitution fine.
Randazzle's appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) The opening brief also includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating that Randazzle was advised he could file his own brief with this court. By letter on September 26, 2005, we invited Randazzle to submit additional briefing.
Randazzle replied with a short handwritten letter stating he does not have â€
