P. v. Ringgold

Filed 11/24/09 P. v. Ringgold CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Marcelita V. Haynes, Judge. Affirmed with directions.

Linn Davis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Johnny Ringgold appeals from the judgment entered following his plea of no contest to petty theft with a prior (Pen. Code, 666).[1] The trial court sentenced Ringgold to two years in state prison. We affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. Facts.[2]

Ruslan Berdichevskiy works as a loss prevention detective for the Loehmanns Department Store on La Cienega Boulevard in Los Angeles. At approximately 7:30 p.m. on December 6, 2008, Berdichevskiy observed Ringgold on closed circuit television concealing merchandise on his person. Ringgold then headed for the store exit without stopping at any cash registers.

Berdichevskiy walked out of the store and waited for Ringgold to come out the exit. When he did, Berdichevskiy approached Ringgold, introduced himself as a loss prevention officer and showed Ringgold his badge. Ringgold elbowed Berdichevskiy in the center of Berdichevskiys chest, knocking him off balance, then ran east on Blackburn Avenue. Berdichevskiy, joined by his partner, Alex Tishmarritian, chased Ringgold, who ultimately stopped after Berdichevskiy repeatedly screamed,  Loss prevention, stop. 

Berdichevskiy told Ringgold to drop the merchandise he had taken and Ringgold stated he did not have anything. When Berdichevskiy told Ringgold they had everything [on] cameras, Ringgold dropped to the ground a watch with a Loehmanns tag on it. Berdichevskiy reminded Ringgold that everything had been recorded on the closed circuit camera, then asked Ringgold if he had any more merchandise. Ringgold dropped a ring to the ground. Berdichevskiy then asked Ringgold to turn around so that he could see if Ringgold was hiding anything in his back pockets. When Ringgold then turned back toward him, Berdichevskiy put [Ringgold] on the ground.

While Berdichevskiy held Ringgolds hands, Tishmarritian held onto his legs. Ringgold, who Berdichevskiy believed was under the influence of drugs, then began to struggle and, after five or six minutes, was able to free himself from the security guards grasp, get up and run away. Tishmarritian and Berdichevskiy followed Ringgold until he stopped, turned toward them and pulled from his pocket a huge wire cutter. However, the two security guards were able to wrestle Ringgold to the ground, then get him up and transport him to the Wilshire Police Station.

It was later determined that the watch taken by Ringgold was valued at $59.99 and the ring was priced at $20.98. In total, Ringgold took $80.87 worth of merchandise.

2. Procedural History.

On January 2, 2009, Ringgold was charged by information with one count of second degree robbery ( 211) (count 1), one count of petty theft with a prior ( 666, 484) (count 2) and one count of battery ( 242, 243, subd. (a)) (count 3). It was further alleged as to counts 1 and 2 that Ringgold previously had served two separate prison terms ( 667.5). Ringgold waived arraignment and entered pleas of not guilty to each of the three counts.

At proceedings held on February 23, 2009, the People indicated that they had extended an offer to Ringgold: if he pleaded guilty or no contest to the allegations in count 2, the trial court would impose a sentence of two years in state prison and all the remaining counts and allegations would be dismissed. Ringgold conferred with his counsel and decided to take the plea. The prosecutor determined that Ringgold understood the charges against him, then advised him of his right to a court or jury trial, his right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him, his right to subpoena witnesses and present a defense and his privilege against self-incrimination. In addition, the prosecutor advised Ringgold that, since he was on probation, he was giving up his right to have a hearing on his probation violation during which he had the right to confront and cross-examine the Peoples witnesses, the right to present a defense and the privilege against self-incrimination. After being so advised, Ringgold waived his constitutional rights and his right to a probation violation hearing and pleaded no contest to petty theft with a prior as alleged in count 2 of the information and admitted suffering a prior conviction for grand theft in violation of section 487, subdivision (a). The trial court found that Ringgold had freely, voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived his rights, that the plea and admission were made with an understanding of the nature of its consequences and that there was a factual basis for the plea. After reviewing the requirements of the case for which Ringgold had violated probation, the trial court imposed a sentence of two years in prison.

Ringgold was awarded presentence custody credit for 80 days actually served and 40 days of good time/work time, or a total of 120 days. He was ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine ( 1202.4, subd. (b)), a suspended $200 parole revocation restitution fine ( 1202.45), a $10 crime prevention fine ( 1202.5),[3] a $20 court security assessment ( 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), and a $20 criminal conviction assessment. On the Peoples motion, all remaining counts and allegations were dismissed in furtherance of justice ( 1385).

Ringgold filed a timely notice of appeal on April 23, 2009. His request for a certificate of probable cause was denied on April 28, 2009.

This court appointed counsel to represent Ringgold on appeal on August 3, 2009.

CONTENTIONS

After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief which raised no issues and requested this court to conduct an independent review of the record.

By notice filed September 1, 2009, the clerk of this court advised Ringgold to submit within 30 days any contentions, grounds of appeal or arguments he wished this court to consider. No response has been received to date.

REVIEW ON APPEAL

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied counsel has complied fully with counsels responsibilities. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-284; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443.)

DISPOSITION

The abstract of judgment is ordered corrected to reflect a fine of $10 imposed pursuant to section 1202.5 and a corrected copy is to be forwarded to the Department of Corrections. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KITCHING, J.

We concur:

KLEIN, P. J.

ALDRICH, J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line Lawyers.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

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

[2] The facts have been taken from the transcript of the preliminary hearing and the probation report.

[3] The abstract of judgment shows a fine of $24 imposed pursuant to section 1202.5.