P. v. Tate
Filed 6/25/12
P. v. Tate CA2/2
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This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published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.
RAYMOND TATE,
Defendant
and Appellant.
B234529
(Los
Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BA380161)
THE COURT:
Defendant
and appellant Raymond Tate (defendant) appeals from his conviction of
vandalism. After his appointed counsel
filed a brief pursuant to
(Wende), raising no issues, we
notified defendant on February 9, 2012, of his counsel’s brief and gave him
leave to file, within 30 days, his own brief or letter stating any grounds or
argument he might wish to have considered.
Defendant filed a letter summarizing his version of the events leading to
his arrest and conviction.
Defendant
was charged by amended information with making criminal threats in violation of
Penal Code section 422,
name="_ftnref2" title="">[1] and felony vandalism in violation of
section 594, subdivision (a). The
information alleged that defendant had suffered one prior serious or violent
felony conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes†law (§§ 667,
subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)).
The same prior felony conviction was alleged for purposes of section
667, subdivision (a)(1). A jury convicted
defendant as charged and found the vandalism damage to exceed $400. Defendant waived a jury trial on his prior
felony conviction, and after hearing the evidence, the trial court found the
allegation to be true.
At
sentencing, defendant’s sister spoke on his behalf and asked the court to
impose the lower term of imprisonment.
The court also heard from defendant.
The trial court denied defendant’s Romero motion,
of nine years in state prison,
composed of the middle term of two years as to count 1, doubled as a second
strike, and enhanced by five years pursuant to section 667, subdivision
(a)(1). As to count 2, the trial court
imposed one-third the middle term, eight months, to run concurrently with the
sentence on count 1. The court awarded
custody credit of 172 actual days and 86 days of conduct credit, for a total of
258 days. The court imposed mandatory
fines and fees, and ordered victim restitution of $627. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
The prosecution’s evidence showed that late at night on January 16, 2011, defendant boarded a
bus with no other passengers, and made flirtatious comments to the driver,
Trina Tillman (Tillman). Rebuffed, defendant
yelled, cursed, hit and kicked parts of the bus, and paced back and forth close
to the driver. When told that the last
stop was approaching, defendant became enraged, cursed, screamed, and demanded
to be taken to the beach, which was not on the route or nearby. At the next red light, Tillman stopped behind
a police car and honked her horn.
Angered further by this, defendant extended his hands toward her as
though he were about to grab her, called her “bitch†and “whore†and said,
“I’ll kill you.†Defendant’s threat and
his behavior made Tillman fear for her life.
She opened the bus door, and called to the police officer for help.
Los
Angeles Police Officer Brian Churchill saw defendant’s gesture from his patrol
car, and then saw defendant walking away from the bus. When Tillman said, “He threatened to kill meâ€
and pointed at defendant, Officer Churchill detained, handcuffed, and placed
defendant in the backseat of the patrol car.
While Officer Churchill was interviewing Tillman, defendant placed his
back against the front seatback and used his feet to kick out the rear window,
causing it to shatter and bend the frame.
The cost of repairing the window was $627.39.
Defendant
presented no evidence. The trial court
denied a defense motion to reduce the charges to misdemeanors.
We have
examined the entire record, including defendant’s letter containing his version
of the events. We are satisfied that
appellant’s attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no
arguable issue exists. We conclude that
defendant 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, 112-113.)
The
judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN
THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
J.
name="_ftn2" title="">[1] All
further statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated.
