P. v. Stathum
Filed 1/3/13 P.
v. Stathum CA2/1
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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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 ONE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
AARON VICTOR
STATHUM,
Defendant and Appellant.
B243502
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. VA119137
APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Michael L. Shuur, Commissioner. Affirmed.
Jonathan
B. Steiner and Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_______________________________
>
On March
23, 2011, defendant and appellant Aaron
Victor Stathum and a codefendant robbed the manager of a recycling company of
$120,000. Stathum and his codefendant
were charged with second degree robbery
(Pen. Code, § 211) with an allegation that the amount taken exceeded
$65,000 (Pen. Code, § 12022.6, subd. (a)(1)). A prior conviction in 1996 for robbery was
charged as a prior strike and a prior serious felony conviction. (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (a)(1), 1170.12.)
On
May 1, 2012, pursuant to a waiver of his trial rights, defendant entered a
guilty plea to the robbery charge and admitted the Penal Code section 12022.6,
subdivision (a)(1) allegation and prior conviction allegations. At sentencing on June 26, 2012, the court
struck the prior strike and the Penal Code section 12022.6, subdivision (a)(1)
allegations and imposed the three-year midterm for the robbery and a five-year
enhancement for the prior serious felony conviction for an aggregate sentence
of state prison for eight years.
Defendant
filed a timely notice of appeal from
the sentence and postplea matters and sought issuance of a certificate of
probable cause to challenge his plea; the trial court denied the request for a
certificate.
We
appointed counsel to represent
defendant on appeal. After examination
of the record, appointed counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and
asking this court to independently review the record. (People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
On November
1, 2012, we sent letters to defendant and
appointed counsel, directing counsel to immediately forward the appellate
record to defendant and advising defendant that he had 30 days within which to
personally submit any contentions or
issues he wished us to consider. To
date, defendant has not responded.
Defendant’s
guilty plea and the trial court’s denial of a certificate of probable cause
limit the potential scope of defendant’s appeal to “[g]rounds that arose after
entry of the plea and do not affect the plea’s validity†or “[t]he denial of a
motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5.â€
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b); Pen. Code, § 1237.5.) We have examined the entire record and have
found that no arguable issues of any sort exist, let alone issues cognizable
without a certificate of probable cause.
We are satisfied that defendant’s appointed counsel has fully complied
with his responsibilities and that no arguable
issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109-110;
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED.
CHANEY,
J.
We concur:
MALLANO, P. J.
ROTHSCHILD, J.
