P. v. Robinson
Filed 6/5/08 P. v. Robinson CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT KARLIPH ROBINSON, Defendant and Appellant. | E044311 (Super.Ct.No. RIF131230) O P I N I O N |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Carl E. Davis, Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct., assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, 6, of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed with directions.
William D. Farber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On the morning of May 23, 2006, Riverside County Sheriffs Deputy Ronald White received a call to respond to the EZ Lube oil change store in Moreno Valley regarding a report of domestic violence. It had been reported that the victim had been stabbed. Deputy White arrived to find Estella Lancaster at the EZ Lube; defendant was found nearby.
Deputy White observed scratches on Lancasters neck and arm, which she told him defendant had inflicted upon her. Lancaster told Deputy White that on the morning of either May 20 or May 22, defendant hit her in the stomach and called her bad names. He also tried to choke her. At some point, Lancaster grabbed a metal-handled mop and tried to attack defendant with it. He took it from her, broke the handle, and then hit her with the handle. She sustained a cut on her forehead, which she showed to Deputy White.
At some other point during the weekend, Lancaster told Deputy White that she was in the bedroom when defendant entered with a kitchen knife and sliced her in the chest with the knife. He made two small cuts on her chest, which she showed to Deputy White. Defendant asked her, Do you want to die? and something to the effect that if he could not have her, no one could. Defendant had been intoxicated the entire weekend.
Deputy White accompanied Lancaster to her nearby apartment located at 12150 Pigeon Pass Road in Moreno Valley, which she shared with defendant. Deputy White observed that the dining room chair cushions were all damaged. The screen door was cut. Lancaster told Deputy White that defendant had tried to get in the locked screen door by cutting it open. The couches had cuts in them. The cord for the telephone had been cut; Lancaster told Deputy White that defendant had cut the cord sometime during the prior two or three days.
A broken aluminum mop handle was found on the balcony. The knife was found in the dishwasher. Lancaster told Deputy White that there was no blood on the knife because it had been washed.
At trial, Lancaster testified that she and defendant had been married since November 18, 2005. In early May, Lancaster had a tubal pregnancy and had to have surgery. During the weekend of May 20, 2006, she and defendant were not getting along so defendant was going to leave their apartment. Lancaster locked defendant out. Defendant had broken the mop handle trying to pry open the screen door to get back in the apartment.
Lancaster denied that defendant ever hit her in the stomach, that he hit her with a mop, that he poked her with a knife, or that he ever threatened her with the knife. She may have hit defendant with the mop handle, but she could not remember. Lancaster claimed that she had pulled the telephone wire out of the wall because defendant had been talking on the phone with his girlfriend.
On May 22, Lancaster slept in the bedroom with the door locked while defendant slept on the couch. During the night, defendant used a fork to unlock the door to come in and try to apologize to Lancaster. The following morning, she found defendant cutting up their couches with a knife. Lancaster had paid over $2,000 for the couches. The cord on the blender was cut, the cushions on the dining room table chairs had been damaged, and there were knife carvings on the dining room table.
Lancaster claimed that the cuts she had told Deputy White had been caused by defendant poking her with the knife actually were suffered when she got into an altercation with a girl she believed defendant was cheating on her with during that same weekend. Lancaster only told the police these things about the knife and defendants threats because she wanted defendant to go to jail. Lancaster was seeking a divorce from defendant.
Defendant had been seen in Lancasters apartment after the incident. Deputy White had seen defendant and Lancaster together since the incident. In December 2006, Lancaster told an investigator employed by the district attorneys office that she sustained the injuries to her chest during a fight with her best friend.
Defendant called Kaleeca Griffin, Lancasters cousin, in his defense. Griffin was with Lancaster in May 2006 when she got into a fight with a girl at a bar. Griffin had seen the girl come out of the apartment where defendant and Lancaster lived on a prior occasion.
Defendant was found guilty by a jury of attempted criminal threats (Pen. Code, 664, 422),[1]destruction of telephone lines ( 591), vandalism over $400 ( 594, subd. (b)), and misdemeanor spousal battery ( 243, subd.(e)(1)). The jury also found true the allegation that defendant personally used a deadly and/or dangerous weapon during the commission of the misdemeanor spousal battery and attempted terrorist threats. ( 12022, subd. (b)(1).) The trial court found true at a bifurcated proceeding that defendant had served a prior prison term. ( 667.5, subd. (b).) Defendant was sentenced to 2 years 8 months in state prison.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal and requested that he be appointed counsel.
II
DISCUSSION
Counsel appointed to represent defendant on appeal has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. State of California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493], setting forth a statement of the case and a summary of the facts, but no potential arguable issues. Counsel requested that this court undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done. We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
We do note that the abstract of judgment does not reflect the $200 restitution fine imposed by the trial court pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1). We will order the abstract of judgment amended to reflect the fine.
We also note that the trial court did not impose the mandatory parole revocation fine pursuant to section 1202.45. Once the trial court imposed the restitution fine under section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1), the section 1202.45 parole revocation fine was mandatory and it can be corrected on appeal. (People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 853 [the imposition of a parole revocation fine pursuant to 1202.45 (which first requires the imposition of a restitution fine under 1202.4) is mandatory and may be corrected by an appellate court despite People v. Tillman (2000) 22 Cal.4th 300, 303].) We do not believe the imposition of the parole revocation fine is an arguable issue, and therefore, we will impose the $200 parole revocation fine pursuant to section 1202.45, imposition of which will be stayed pending successful completion of parole.
III
DISPOSITION
We modify the sentence by imposing the mandatory parole revocation fine in the amount of $200, imposition of which is stayed pending successful completion of parole, pursuant to section 1202.45. The trial court is directed to amend the abstract of judgment and the minute order to include the $200 restitution fine imposed pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (b), and the $200 parole revocation fine as herein indicated. A copy of the modified abstract of judgment shall be forwarded to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
/s/ Richli
J.
We concur:
/s/ Hollenhorst
Acting P.J.
/s/ McKinster
J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
