P. v. Rodriguez

 

 

 

Filed 2/28/14  P. v.
Rodriguez CA2/2

 

 

 

 

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE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  This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

 

 
>

THE PEOPLE,               Plaintiff and Respondent,               v.   ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ,               Defendant and Appellant.

B249959         (Los Angeles County       Super. Ct. No. BA407714)

 

            THE COURT:href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">^*

 

            Appellant
Roberto Rodriguez (Rodriguez) appeals from the judgment of conviction following
a plea of no contest.

            Rodriguez
was seen by a security officer at a CVS store taking items without paying for
them.  When the officer confronted
Rodriguez, a struggle ensued.  During the
struggle, Rodriguez poked the officer with a screwdriver.

            Later,
Rodriguez was charged with robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), assault with a deadly
weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)), and petty theft (Pen. Code, §§ 484, subd. (a),
666.)  A deadly weapon (screwdriver) use allegation
was alleged as to all three counts (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (b)(1)).  A 1999 prior conviction for robbery was
alleged as a prior “strike” and a prior-five-year serious felony conviction
enhancement (Pen. Code, §§ 667, 1170.12). 
This, and three other prior
convictions, were alleged as one-year prior prison term enhancements (Pen.
Code, § 667.5, subd. (c)).

Following the
denial of Marsdenhref="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="">^[1]> and >Farettahref="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title="">^[2] motions, Rodriguez
waived his trial rights, pled no contest to the robbery charge, and admitted
the prior strike and serious felony conviction allegations.  He was immediately sentenced to a nine-year
term in prison, which represented the two-year lower term, doubled to four
years because of the strike, plus the five-year enhancement for the same prior
conviction.  Presentence credits were
awarded and mandatory fines were imposed.

Rodriguez filed
a notice of appeal.

Counsel was
appointed to represent Rodriguez in connection with this appeal.  After examination of the record, counsel
filed an “Opening Brief” in which no arguable issues were raised.  On November 1, 2013, we advised Rodriguez that he had 30 days within which to
personally submit any contentions or issues for us to consider.  No response has been received to date.

            We
have examined the entire record and are satisfied that Rodriguez’s appellate
counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable
issues exist.  (People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436, 441 (Wende).)  We see no indication of any sentencing
errors.  Accordingly, we conclude that Rodriguez
has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure and our
review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the
judgment entered against him in this case. 
(Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259,
278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40
Cal.4th 106, 123–124.)

            The
judgment is affirmed.

            NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.