P. v. Trujillo
Filed 1/24/14 P. v. Trujillo CA4/1
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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
GUILLERMO TRUJILLO,
Defendant and Appellant.
D063961
(Super. Ct. No.
SCS259700)
APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court of
San Diego County, Theodore M. Weathers, Judge. Affirmed.
Robert
Booher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Guillermo
Trujillo was charged by information
with robbery (Pen. Code, § 211),
with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) with an allegation he
personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(23)),
and assault by means likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd.
(a)(4)). The information charged gang enhancements
as to all counts (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)), and alleged a prison prior
(§§ 667.5, subd. (b), 668), and a strike prior (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i),
1170.12, 668). The parties entered into
a plea bargain; Trujillo pleaded guilty to robbery and admitted the gang enhancement
allegation in return for a stipulated term of 16 years. Thereafter, he was sentenced in accordance
with the plea agreement. Trujillo subsequently filed a notice of appeal challenging the validity of
the plea, alleging he was not given all of the discovery he requested, but the
court denied his request for a certificate
of probable cause.
Trujillo
appeals. We affirm the judgment.
FACTS
Trujillo took the
personal property of another with force or fear, and did so for the benefit of
a criminal street gang.
DISCUSSION
Appointed
appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the proceedings below. Counsel
presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for
error as mandated by People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v.
California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.
issue: whether Trujillo's plea was constitutionally
valid.
We granted Trujillo permission to file a
supplemental brief on his own behalf, but he has not responded. A review of the record pursuant to
and Anders v. California, supra, 386
U.S. 738 has disclosed no
reasonably arguable appellate issues. Trujillo has been
competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
McDONALD, J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER,
Acting P. J.
McINTYRE,
J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] Statutory references
are to the Penal Code.
