P. v. Scott
Filed 8/5/09 P. v. Scott CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER SCOTT, Defendant and Appellant. | A121408 (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. 202729) |
A jury convicted defendant of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211).[1] Following a bifurcated court trial, the trial court found true an allegation that defendant had suffered a prior conviction of second degree robbery, a serious felony. Defendant was sentenced to 11 years in prison after the trial court denied defendants motion to strike the strike prior.[2] Defendants counsel has asked this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)
Substantial evidence supports defendants conviction. Witnesses testified that on the night of August 2, 2007, defendant rode his bicycle into a woman taking pictures of a restaurant on Mission Street near Fourth Street in San Francisco, knocked her over, pushed the bicycle against her body, then took the victims camera bag after a brief struggle. Defendant fled on foot, but was chased by passersby and arrested a short time later after witnesses flagged down police officers and told them what had happened.
Defendant was represented by counsel and received a fair trial. This court has reviewed the record, and there are no meritorious issues to be argued on appeal.
The judgment is affirmed.
_________________________
Sepulveda, J.
We concur:
_________________________
Reardon, Acting P.J.
_________________________
Rivera, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
[2] The sentence consisted of the midterm of three years ( 213, subd. (a)(2)), doubled because of the prior strike ( 667, subd. (e)(1)), plus five years pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a)(1).


