P. v. Ruiz
Filed 6/30/08 P. v. Ruiz CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GEORGE J. RUIZ, Defendant and Appellant. | B203574 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA058284) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
Robert J. Schuit, Judge. Affirmed.
Linn Davis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
George J. Ruiz appeals from the judgment entered following his guilty plea to carjacking (Pen. Code, 215, subd. (a)), his admissions that during the commission of the offense he personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon, to wit, a pellet gun, within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022, subdivision (b)(2), that he suffered a prior conviction of a serious or violent felony within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i) & 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and two prior convictions of a serious felony within the meaning of Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1). Pursuant to the negotiated plea, appellant withdrew his motion to set aside the information pursuant to Penal Code section 995, count 1, attempted kidnapping for carjacking (Pen. Code, 664/209.5) count 2, second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211) were dismissed and appellant was sentenced to prison for 30 years. His sentence consisted of the upper term of nine years for count 3, doubled by reason of the Three Strikes law, five years for each of the two prior felony convictions admitted pursuant to Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1), plus the midterm of two years for the weapon enhancement.
The evidence at the preliminary hearing established that on February 5, 2007, Los Angeles Police Officer Quincy Walunga was on patrol when he observed appellant walking southbound on Bromont Avenue from Astoria Street in Los Angeles County. Appellant threw what appeared to be a set of keys onto the sidewalk and Officer Walunga heard a yell for help coming from a northerly direction. Jose Rodriguez was hanging out of a vehicle waving his arms, asking for help and pointing in the direction of appellant. Mr. Rodriguez yelled that appellant had put a gun to Mr. Rodriguezs head. Appellant attempted to flee and Mr. Rodriguez tackled him.
Mr. Rodriguez stated that while seated in his vehicle, appellant walked up to him on the passengers side, pointed a gun at his head and demanded Mr. Rodriguezs keys and wallet. Appellant ordered Mr. Rodriguez into the backseat of the vehicle. Mr. Rodriguez complied because he believed appellant was going to shoot him. Mr. Rodriguez stated that another male, whom Officer Walunga had just seen drive away, approached on the drivers side with a gun. Mr. Rodriguezs wallet and keys and a pellet gun were recovered on the ground between bushes, approximately 50 feet south of the vehicle.
Appellant requested but was denied a certificate of probable cause.
After review of the record, appellants court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.
On February 15, 2008, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within 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 no arguable issues exist and that appellant has, by virtue of counsels compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the order entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
SUZUKAWA, J.
We concur:
EPSTEIN, P. J.
WILLHITE, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line Lawyers.
