P. v. Riley
Filed 5/5/10 P. v. Riley 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. REGINALD LOUIS RILEY, Defendant and Appellant. | B213781 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. GA066203 and GA073622) |
APPEAL from a judgment and an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Janice Claire Croft, Judge. Affirmed.
William D. Farber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_____________________________
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Reginald Louis Riley was sentenced to state prison on January 23, 2009, following the revocation of probation imposed after an earlier conviction for assault with a deadly weapon (a knife) in violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1). Defendant had pleaded no contest to the charge on November 27, 2006, pursuant to a negotiated agreement. As agreed, a second aggravated assault charge was dismissed, imposition of sentence was suspended, and defendant was placed on three years formal probation on condition he serve 120 days in county jail, which were deemed served. As one of the conditions of probation, defendant was ordered to obey all laws. The court also ordered defendant to pay a $20 security assessment and a $200 restitution fine.
Defendant was arrested once again on June 4, 2008, and charged with aggravated assault, making a criminal threat, and stalking (Los Angeles Superior Court case No. GA073622). On June 27, 2008, defendants probation was revoked as a result of this new case, and he was remanded to custody. His probation violation hearing was set to trail his jury trial in the new case.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
At trial in January 2009, Sharon Hill (Hill) testified that defendant was not happy when she terminated their sexual relationship in September 2007. In October 2007, defendant demanded that Hill allow him into her home. Hill was frightened and contacted police. Defendant left after speaking with officers. Again in October 2007, Hill encountered defendant in a store, and he followed her to the parking lot and prevented her from opening her car door. After speaking briefly with defendant, Hill managed to enter her car and to drive away. On June 4, 2008, defendant approached Hill at a bus stop. Placing his hands around Hills throat, defendant choked her and dragged her to a wall. Hill struggled and eventually forced defendant to release her. To calm defendant, Hill suggested they walk to a nearby restaurant. Defendant was angry and told her he wanted to hurt her. At some point, Hill was able to talk with police while walking with defendant. She reported her location and suggested that officers meet her at a nearby office building. After entering the building with defendant, Hill locked herself in a restroom, where she remained until police arrived.
After three days of deliberation, the jury acquitted defendant of counts 2 and 3, making a criminal threat and stalking, but was hopelessly deadlocked on count 1, aggravated assault. The trial court declared a mistrial as to that count. The prosecutor elected to proceed with the probation violation hearing. Following argument by counsel, the court found defendant in violation of probation based on the trial evidence.
In sentencing defendant, the court declined to reinstate probation and imposed the middle term of three years in state prison for assault with a deadly weapon (Los Angeles Superior Court case No. GA066203). Defendant received presentence custody credit of 477 days (198 actual days, 159 days of conduct credit, and 120 days previous credit). A parole revocation fine was imposed and suspended pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.45.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On December 17, 2009, we advised defendant he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. We have received no response to date. We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that 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 and order are affirmed.
JACKSON, J.
We concur:
PERLUSS, P. J.
WOODS, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.
