P. v. Rivera
Filed 2/4/13 P.
v. Rivera CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 FIVE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff
and Respondent,
v.
FELIX JOSE RIVERA,
Defendant
and Appellant.
B242604
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct. No.
PA070111)
APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court of
County. Daniel B. Feldstern,
Judge. Affirmed.
Richard
L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_______________
Appellant
Felix Jose Rivera, along with codefendant Karen Derush, was charged with
carjacking in violation of Penal Code
robbery in violation of section 211. As
to both counts, it was alleged that appellant personally used a dangerous and
deadly weapon within the meaning of section 12022, subdivision
(b)(2). The information further alleged
that appellant had suffered a prior conviction that qualified as a serious felony
under section 667, subdivision (a)(1) as well as a strike within the meaning of
sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i) and 1170.12, subdivisions (a)
through (d). The information also
alleged that appellant had served three prior prison terms within the meaning
of section 667.5, subdivision (b).
On
May 31, 2012, appellant waived his constitutional
rights, pled no contest to carjacking and admitted the strike
allegation. The court imposed the
agreed-upon sentence of 18 years by selecting the upper-term of nine years,
doubled. The court awarded appellant
presentence custody credits and imposed mandatory fines and fees. The court also ordered appellant to make full
restitution to the victim in an amount to be determined at a hearing set for a
later date.
On
July 19, 2012, the parties stipulated to the restitution figure of $6,533, and
the court ordered appellant to pay the victim that sum in restitution.
Appellant
filed a timely notice of appeal, which states that "This appeal is based
on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect
the validity of the plea." We
appointed counsel to represent him on this appeal.
After
examination of the record, appellant's counsel filed an opening brief pursuant
to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436, and requested that this court conduct an independent review of the entire
appellate record to determine whether any arguable issues exist. On November 8, 2012, we advised appellant
that he had 30 days in which to personally submit any contentions or issues
which he wished us to consider. No
response has been received to date.
We
have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has
fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People
v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
ARMSTRONG,
Acting P. J.
We concur:
MOSK,
J.
KRIEGLER,
J.
name="_ftn1" title=""> [1] Unless otherwise indicated, further statutory
references are to the Penal Code.
